Probably the stupidest fucking debate I've ever seen. Cops don't shoot at the center of mass to be nice - they do it because they can't hit shit. At the body gives them a bigger target area. It's not especially likley that the dude from Brazil would have been any better off if they'd shot him five times in the chest.

Head or torso, it's still lethal force and should only be used against the like. That's what the debate should be about, not this nonsense over which area to aim at. Why are folks so brainless?

P.S. You should note that those English cops only managed to hit the guy's head from about a foot away.

8/7/2005 7:23:48 PM

cops should just shoot people in the foot to stop them
or find a rope thats holding something up above their head and then shoot the rope so the object falls on the person thus stopping them

8/7/2005 7:28:26 PM

JACK BAUER SAYS

Quote :

" you need them alive for interogation "

8/7/2005 7:29:37 PM

^^ that appears to be what some people seriously believe

real life ain't like a Western movie, folks

[Edited on August 7, 2005 at 7:30 PM. Reason : ^^]

8/7/2005 7:30:11 PM

Can't they just shoot the gun out of their hand?

8/7/2005 7:31:51 PM

jack bauer would be taking a chance by just shooting someones hand

8/7/2005 7:35:59 PM

yeah, this is fucking stupid. "shoot to stop" IS shooting to kill...the whole idea is to spray your targets heart and lungs all over the wall behind him, which tends to stop him pretty quickly. the only reason that you go for heart and lungs over brain is because it's easier to hit the heart and lungs.

if i ever have to shoot a dude, he's going to die. i'll have a half-dozen .45 hollow points in his chest before he hits the ground. if the shit hits the fan that badly, i'm not taking any chances. furthermore, i only want one story told in the courtroom. finally, i don't want to have to deal with him again later, since he'll probably still be pissed when he gets out of the slammer. i know if someone shot me, then had me locked in a cell and fucked in the butt, i would be SERIOUSLY pissed.


as one more little FYI, if you ever shoot anyone, you are actually more likely to get in legal trouble for shooting to wound someone than you are for double-tapping the chest. the rationale is that if the situation is fucked up enough that you have to resort to shooting, then you are out of options and need to drop the assailant like a bad habit. if you shoot someone in the leg or something, it could likely be argued that the situation wasn't dire enough to justify shooting him at all.

when i go to the range, usually i just practice slow fire at bullseye targets, b/c that's what more fun to me. when i practice quick double taps and stuff on a human-form target, though, i ALWAYS shoot center of mass, and i ALWAYS fire at least a double-tap, with the only exception being practicing "2 to the chest, one to the head." if i ever am in that position, i want it to be all but a reflex once i make the decision to squeeze the trigger.

[Edited on August 7, 2005 at 7:45 PM. Reason : asdf]

8/7/2005 7:40:08 PM

Quote :

""2 to the chest, one to the head." "

so when trying to stop someone, use a double tap to the chest ...so in what case do you use the double tap plus headshot?

i dont think it make you look good in the investigators eyes for having shot someone twice in the chest and once in the head?

[Edited on August 7, 2005 at 7:53 PM. Reason : -]

8/7/2005 7:53:37 PM

Quote :

"i dont think it make you look good in the investigators eyes for having shot someone twice in the chest and once in the head?"

why not?

sounds like you dont know much about this subject

8/7/2005 7:54:39 PM

no i dont. i agree though that shooting to kill is really the best idea probably always.

8/7/2005 7:55:55 PM

^^ I think what he is saying is that someone might twist it to look like you had a motive for killing the person, and that is why you shot them "so many times" rather than the one shot just to kill the person and stop them....

Although I agree that this is stupid because one bullet won't stop someone everytime.

and

Quote :

"then had me locked in a cell and fucked in the butt, i would be SERIOUSLY pissed."

lol.

8/7/2005 8:15:26 PM

there are a lot of very good prosecuters out there

8/7/2005 8:28:05 PM

Quote :

""2 to the chest, one to the head." "

????????

8/7/2005 8:39:37 PM

Legally speaking, if you've shot the guy twice COM, and the bad guy has dropped his gun and he is no longer a threat, you have no legal right to shoot the guy in the head just for the hell of it. So technically, you are shooting to stop the threat, not necessarily shooting to kill (although fatality is quite often a by-product of a shoot-to-stop situation).

However, in most self-defense situations, adrenaline usually causes the person being attacked to empty the magazine, so it's not so easy to say that you can just stop shooting when the threat has been diminished. A full magazine can be emptied in 3 seconds or less depending magazine capacity.

And actually, Josh8315 made a good point. If it is clear that two shots to the chest would have stopped the threat, (say he only had a knife and not a gun), then the shot to the head could be seen as excessive force, which is a prosecutable offense.

8/7/2005 10:40:04 PM

you are right on all counts...

however, when i talk about practicing double-taps/2 to chest + 1 to head, i mean practicing doing it FAST...like both chest shots in maybe a half second, with the head shot about a second later. my view is that if shit gets that bad, i'm gonna respond with such overwhelming, ferocious, quickly delivered violence that it's gonna be over pretty much instantly.

that's another reason i shoot a .45 with +P hollowpoints.

8/7/2005 11:29:17 PM

eh, unless you hit brain or spine the guy will have a few seconds... if he's tough

8/7/2005 11:40:07 PM

Quote :

"However, in most self-defense situations, adrenaline usually causes the person being attacked to empty the magazine, so it's not so easy to say that you can just stop shooting when the threat has been diminished. A full magazine can be emptied in 3 seconds or less depending magazine capacity."

This is exactly why even though my rifle's clip can hold something like 20+ bullets, I only keep 4 or 5 in it... I know that if I ever had to use it in a threatening situation, I might be tempted to use every last one in there.

4 or 5 b/c it's a .22 and might not do the job with just 2.

8/7/2005 11:40:47 PM

remind me to avoid getting on your bad side, jessica

on the other hand, it is only a .22

8/7/2005 11:43:00 PM

^^^oh, for sure...but i don't think he'd be a huge threat after the first couple of rounds...and i can put a whole lot of rounds into the vitals in a few seconds if i have to. .45 is pretty rough stuff...i actually don't load with true hollowpoints, either. i load 2 frangibles (they break into pieces when the hit you and cause even more damage), then one full metal jacket (just in case a situation were to arise where i had to shoot through something like a car window, and continue that pattern down the magazine)...and just to make extra sure, i load +P ammo (more powerful than standard load).

it's a fucking brutal weapon. There ain't no kill like overkill.


^^load it all the way, and use hollowpoint ammo, and then start shooting it like it's a paintball gun if you ever have to use it.

or better yet, get something better than a .22 if you ever intend to rely on a gun for self-defense.

[Edited on August 7, 2005 at 11:49 PM. Reason : asdf]

8/7/2005 11:47:29 PM

yep yep

just as long as you shoot better than some cops

8/7/2005 11:50:15 PM

4 or 5 .22's ain't shit. It's not much of a self defense weapon(for that matter, neither is my .380 but I really like the compact size) Not to mention you might just miss.

But it is always wise to consider how things will look in the courtroom.

8/7/2005 11:50:37 PM

will .22 rifle round penetrate 12+ inches?

'coz that's what matters more than anything...

other than shot location, of course

8/7/2005 11:53:21 PM

A .22 is better than nothing for self defense, but certainly isn't the caliber of choice due to the fact that it won't create the shock that a larger caliber would. Also, the wound channel from a .22 is very small, causeing your attacker to bleed out slowly instead of stopping the threat instantly.

8/7/2005 11:54:08 PM

You don't really want penetration(especially in the city where you're liable for stray rounds). You want to transfer the energy to the target, fucking up as much as possible in the process.

8/8/2005 12:02:17 AM

scored 385/400 with a doo-doo Beretta. 15 rounds were slow-fire at 25 yards, the other 25 were double-taps and rapid fire from 7 and 15 yards. oh, and those 4 holes in the corners are from staples, not bullets.



shot 226/250 with the M-16, including making 9/10 hits on a human-sized target at 500m (those alternating black and white things you see downrange aren't the targets...the little black specks underneath them are the targets.)

and i've shot a 3/4" group with my rifle at 100 yards...although i prob average about 1-1.5".



I am to firearms what you are to swords, axes, maces, spears, lances, and other shit like that.

[Edited on August 8, 2005 at 12:05 AM. Reason : sadfsdf]

[Edited on August 8, 2005 at 12:12 AM. Reason : asdf]

8/8/2005 12:02:33 AM

Damn, 25 yards is a long ways to shoot a pistol, is that the standard length for range practice at USMC?

What kind of sights were you using to shoot at 500m? That is pretty damn good shooting.

8/8/2005 12:12:06 AM

Speaking of swords, do you have to have a permit for those to carry them for self-defense? where do you apply for those permits if so...

8/8/2005 12:13:09 AM

Quote :

"You don't really want penetration(especially in the city where you're liable for stray rounds). You want to transfer the energy to the target, fucking up as much as possible in the process."

Come on... you have to have read this:

Quote :

"It is essential to bear in mind that the single most critical factor remains penetration. "

Quote :

"An issue that must be addressed is the fear of over penetration widely expressed on the part of law enforcement. The concern that a bullet would pass through the body of a subject and injure an innocent bystander is clearly exaggerated. Any review of law enforcement shootings will reveal that the great majority of shots fired by officers do not hit any subjects at all. It should be obvious that the relatively few shots that do hit a subject are not somehow more dangerous to bystanders than the shots that miss the subject entirely."

http://www.pointshooting.com/fbipart1.htm

It's classic.

Quote :

"including making 9/10 hits on a human-sized target at 500m."

Holy shit... isn't 1/10 "average" at 300m?

Btw, have you heard about the Winston Hayes shooting? Ten cops fired 120+ handgun rounds at a guy in an SUV. Pretty close range. They hit him four times and he lived through it. The cops also managed to hit one of their own, though the vest saved him...

Quote :

"I am to firearms what you are to swords, axes, maces, spears, lances, and other shit like that."

Heh, in that case you're fucked. My knowledge is solid, but I'm a total n00b when it comes to actual sparring. You sound more like the Stephen Hand of guns or some such...

8/8/2005 12:14:03 AM

in the USMC, you qualifiy at 7/15/25 yards with the pistol.

you qualify at 200/300/500 meters with the M-16. the sights are just plain, iron peep sights, adjustable for elevation and windage.


oh, and it was about 19 degrees outside on that day, with about a 10 mph breeze, if i remember correctly.

(i'm pretty sure the pistol range is in yards and the rifle range is in meters, but i won't swear to it)

8/8/2005 12:14:25 AM

It's damn good shooting. I'm happy if I can hit what I'm aiming at across the room.

^^I don't know. I tested my .380 against two pieces of sheetrock and 2 pieces of OSB week before last, and hollowpoints went through flying. I'm surrounded by houses, and I doubt my neighbors would like that.

[Edited on August 8, 2005 at 12:18 AM. Reason : .]

8/8/2005 12:14:46 AM

Easy solution:

Bigger bullets.

8/8/2005 12:18:58 AM

yea

8/8/2005 12:19:59 AM

Quote :

"I'm surrounded by houses, and I doubt my neighbors would like that."

They wouldn't like it if you missed, either. It is a concern, but penetration is so important for stopping a gun fight.

And honestly it's hard to accidently hit someone with a bullet. At the Hayes shooting bullets went into houses right and left, but no one was hit (man those cops were inept).

8/8/2005 12:22:44 AM

Better solution:

Build a backstop.

8/8/2005 12:22:57 AM

8/8/2005 12:26:13 AM

8/8/2005 12:26:55 AM

basically what GoldenViper is saying is that it's foolish to sacrifice effectiveness in the name of being sure that you won't shoot straight through your target, b/c if you can't afford to have rounds going past your target, you can't afford to take the shot, b/c there is a good chance that at least some of them will miss, anyway.

i mean, if i had plenty of time, and i wasn't under stress b/c i was in mortal danger and i was about to kill another person, i can pretty much guarantee that i would ALWAYS hit my target out to 25 yards with a pistol...but shooting quickly, under tremendous stress...i have no illusion whatsoever that i would hit my target every time at even half that range.

the correct approach is to make sure you have plenty of power to do the job, and then don't take shots in places where you can't take the risk of rounds going downrange.


the overpenetration argument is usually more focused on not blowing through 3 walls and killing someone at the other end of your house, which is why a 12 gauge shotgun, loaded with smallish buckshot, is the best home defense weapon ever devised, in my opinion.




[Edited on August 8, 2005 at 12:35 AM. Reason : asdf]

8/8/2005 12:33:06 AM

Quote :

"the correct approach is to make sure you have plenty of power to do the job, and then don't take shots in places where you can't take the risk of rounds going downrange."

Yes, exactly.

Quote :

"which is why a 12 gauge shotgun, loaded with smallish buckshot, is the best home defense weapon ever devised, in my opinion."

Perhaps. Not good at taking out a guy in a car, a guy in kevlar, or anyone far away though. But none of that should matter for home defense. If the crook is hardcore enough to wear a vest you're probably screwed anyway...

8/8/2005 12:37:29 AM

Educate our youth and provide true opportunities. No need to shoot anyone after that.

8/8/2005 12:40:51 AM

you're right, because every single youth is going to be all that they can be

NONE of them will turn to crime

8/8/2005 12:42:56 AM

^^^yeah...weighing everything out, i still vote for the shotgun.

and even if, against all odds, your boy was sporting kevlar...if he took a full pattern to the chest, my guess is that he'd be knocked back hard enough to buy you a couple of seconds to put the next pattern in his face (which wouldn't be too hard with a 12 ga)...and there's a good chance, i believe, that a few of the pellets would get into his shoulders or lower neck on the first shot, which would be even better for you.

but yeah, none of that should ever matter. it would suck in a huge way to find yourself on the business end of a 12 gauge.


[Edited on August 8, 2005 at 12:44 AM. Reason : asdf]

8/8/2005 12:43:16 AM

^^ Of course not. I shouldn't have been so extreme.

Educate our youth. Save some money and have to shoot people substantially less often.

[Edited on August 8, 2005 at 12:45 AM. Reason : sss]

8/8/2005 12:45:31 AM

i think that education, while not perfect, is probably always available in sufficient enough quality that the opportunity to better oneself and avoid a life of crime and/or poverty is there.

i'm not saying that our society is perfect, but at some point you have to be realistic and recognize that some people are just determined to suck. you can lead a dumbass to school, but you can't always make him not suck.

basically, i'm not arguing that we shouldn't be working to better our schools and certain programs...i'm just saying that it's not the silver bullet.

[Edited on August 8, 2005 at 12:50 AM. Reason : asfd]

8/8/2005 12:49:36 AM

Even with a shotgun you're not really going to be knocking people around (or so they say). But I have heard of cops being killed by shotgun blasts that didn't penetrate their vests. Either way I'm sure it'd cause serious impact damage. And with buckshot, hitting head or legs shouldn't be TOO hard if that's needed.

Quote :

"it would suck in a huge way to find yourself on the business end of a 12 gauge."

Absolutely. And they're cheap and easy to use too...

8/8/2005 12:50:45 AM

those are the points i'm getting at.

8/8/2005 12:51:34 AM

Quote :

"or better yet, get something better than a .22 if you ever intend to rely on a gun for self-defense."

I plan on buying a Glock once I can get up the funds.

8/8/2005 12:55:05 AM

^Nice decision. Glocks are my personal favorites. Easy to use, reliable, very safe for concealed carry.

8/8/2005 12:57:16 AM

anyways, everyone seems to agreed that it's a silly to consider shooting to stop as "nicer" than shooting for the head, but that's exactly how Fox news spun it. and that silly judge suggested that the Brits should have shot the Brazilian in the leg or something

why is the media so dumb about guns? or are they just throwing this shit up there to divert people away from the real issues involved?

8/8/2005 12:58:00 AM

^^^fire several different pistols before you get a Glock.

Glocks are kind of a love it or hate it affair. I'm not a fan of them, really (although they fit my hand very well). mostly, i just don't like DAO (double action only) pistols.

Quote :

"why is the media so dumb about guns?"

i don't know, man. it's not just the media, either. it's everyone. i think that many people just have an emotional connection with guns, either positive or negative. gun nuts are (sometimes justifiably, but sometimes to the level of paranoia) fearful of their 2nd amendment rights being restricted. anti-gun types have a hatred of guns that's more like a phobia...the way that some people utterly despise, say, snakes in a totally irrational, uneducated manner.

i will say that i've yet to see a SINGLE person who was strongly anti-gun who had any idea what he/she was talking about. half of their arguments are based on simple misconceptions and disinformation, and lots of the rest are piss-poor logic. i see both sides of most issues, even those that i have a strong opinion about...but the gun debate is the one issue that i usually have a hard time doing that with (largely because of how often the "other side" isn't based on differing opinions, but things that i know, beyond a shadow of any doubt, are incorrect.)

[Edited on August 8, 2005 at 1:06 AM. Reason : asdf]

8/8/2005 12:58:19 AM

^I hear you, I own a sig as well (P226) and like it a lot. For daily carry though, I like the Glock because it has no external hammer, no safety (not unlike the sig), same trigger pull for all shots, and has the safe action mechanism. They also seem to fit my hand nicely. A lot of people don't like them though.

Also, you can't beat the price, at sub $500 for most all models, that beats the hell out of paying upward of 700-800 for new Sigs or HK.

8/8/2005 1:01:58 AM