Probably from reality.
There is, for example, the WWII German S-Mine ("Bouncing Betty"), which had a reputation for maiming rather than killing (whether it was designed with that in mind, who can tell). Contemporary documentation suggested that it was lethal within 60 ft, but caused injury out to 450 ft away. Because the genitalia were particularly at risk, I am told that the knowledge that one was in or near a German minefield had quite a psychological effect.
There is the (now well recognized) terrorist bombing technique of following up an initial maiming bomb (causing injuries and an influx of rescuers) with a secondary bomb of higher lethality, to target the rescuers.
There is the idea that a wounded soldier will take one or two more soldiers out of action as he is cared for or transported; whereas a clearly dead soldier does not command that effort.
There is simple economics: it is just plain easier to wound someone than kill them, as the smaller "lethal radius" and larger "woudning radius" of many munitions demonstrate, as does the small A-Zone on an IPSC target.I undertand this is a generic "you", but no, I don't want anyone dead.Actually, this statement supports the "wounding" theory.
The reason (I think you'll agree) that a gunshot wound is less likely to be fatal today is because the available care is more effective.
A 1900 soldier dying in hospital a day or four days after being transported from the field by ambulance, evac'd away from the front to a hospital has consumed far more resources than a soldier who was killed immediately on the field.
And for those who are with 1911Tuner, that sequence still results in the same thing: a dead soldier, just as he desired. But a more expensive dead soldier.
In that way, an arm that kills a soldier outright can be less valuable (that is, less consuming of enemy resources and morale) than an arm that "ends up killing" the soldier many days later.
So there is nothing in the "it is better to wound" theory that is at all inconsistent with an arm causing a wound serious enough to cause eventual death (as long as it is delayed a few hours or days).Well, again, one way is that they may be true, so that's how they got started.
If anyone here has definitive proof (I'll take for example a signed note from Georg Luger that says, "This cartridge is designed to kill, not wound"
) of their theory that the 9mm was not designed with wounding in mind, I'm interested. Otherwise, rhetorical statements such as the two "I wonder"s above do not advance the case.You usually say stop or I'll kill you? Okay.