bdickens
Member
If you are shooting someone in the chest or head with a firearm, you are attempting to kill that person.
No you are not
If you are shooting someone in the chest or head with a firearm, you are attempting to kill that person.
People who promote a fear of laws and of lawyers are hardly any better than communists to me.You go on believing your Hollywood fantasies....
Where's the "dislike" button?
You obviously have no understanding of the concept here, or of the law.
Fortunately, we can have some small comfort in knowing that voir dire will probably eliminate you quickly.
. . . and for about 90 of those years the only bullets available were full metal jackets . . .
I would.
You mean through the same heart/lung region that hunters target to make a clean kill?Your basis for that assertion?
Do you have any knowledge at all of the subject of defensive shooting? Have you ever heard the phrase. "shoot center mass"?
Lol, "morbid curiosity" about the effectiveness of the most common ammunition type in the world.No one else is interested in satisfying your morbid curiosity.
People who promote a fear of laws and of lawyers are hardly any better than communists to me.
As far as I know, it is common knowledge that hollow points were of extremely limited availability and reliability until the late 80s/early 90s.Complete BS. Hollow point bullets have been available in the 9mm since at least 1911 according to an old Remington UMC catalog I have, perhaps longer.
UrbanHermit is not a source of truthful information. Readers should keep this in mind when reading posts.
I take it that the answer to my question is "no".You mean through the same heart/lung region that hunters target to make a clean kill?
I'm not a member of your cult.I take it that the answer to my question is "no".
Technically, you could, though most would put a lot of effort into arguing otherwise. But who here is such a good shot that they can always make the perfect shot in a bad guy? And, how reliable are rimfire rounds?Then why not use a 22? I could carry my Buckmark and just shoot anyone who messes with me in the T zone out to 50 ft even if they are moving. Wouldn't be any harder than squirrel hunting.
People who hunt squirrels every day with pistols.Technically, you could, though most would put a lot of effort into arguing otherwise. But who here is such a good shot that they can always make the perfect shot in a bad guy? And, how reliable are rimfire rounds?
I find that surprising. You would think militaries would place a high value on that information and would be insisting that medical personnel keep track of it. Caliber/bullet wars go back centuries and conflict regarding the effectiveness of various configurations of weapons in the same class go back millenniums. You can find writings left behind by Roman generals weighing the merits of various sword designs.
Exactly.Oh I agree it's always of interest. With law enforcement you see that a lot more, though, because there are fewer shootings and almost all of them result in autopsies and ME reports. But in the military that is not the primary concern. For the most part there are no shootings in the military, but when there are, it is seldom in a situation that lends itself to having autopsy technicians and a coroner poking around in the body. The cost of the juice just isn't worth the squeeze. Plus, even in the much more 'controlled' environment of law enforcement shootings, there are too many variables in a shooting to draw many conclusions about the effects of a single variable. Some of them are also simply not measurable.
I think most experts suspect that the majority of handgun 'stops' are psychological in nature - the victim realizes he or she has been shot and loses all motivation to keep doing whatever they were doing when they got shot. How do you quantify the mental resiliency and determination of a shooting victim?
Others are simply too difficult to measure. In the military, it will almost never be clear who fired what shot and from what angle or distance. Everyone is shooting the same four calibers and using the same ammunition. No one is diagramming the exact movements of everyone in a firefight or recording exactly how long it took to stop an opponent from the second he was shot.
Fackler's data might have some instances, or maybe Marshall and Sanow's, but I don't have it handy
Do we still have a need for pistols? Sure. Do troops in CQB, still transition to pistols? Sure. Do troops not doing CQB stuff choose to leave their pistols behind? You betcha
I'm trying to stop them. That is all, and once they're stopped, I'll stop shooting them.
Not a bit, and the difference is real and will result is trivially differentiated tactics.You're playing stupid, disingenuous word games.
Defensive shooting and the taking of game are not at all the same thing. The later requires deliberation, accuracy, and precision, and if the hunter does not have the opportunity to take the shot, he need not. In lawful defensive shooting, there is no time for deliberation; the target may be closing at 180 inches per second; hitting the hidden, moving internal body parts to effect a timely physical stop is a matter of chance; and several shots will necessarily be fired very rapidly to better that chance. Precision must be sacrificed for speed, and the defender does not have option of waiting for another target it things do not work out. The hunter's objective is to kill cleanly, while the defender's is to stop.People who hunt squirrels every day with pistols.
I did have it drilled into me, and I don't agree with it.Not a bit, and the difference is real and will result is trivially differentiated tactics.
If I'm using deadly force, I have certainly accepted that the subject might die, and decided that stopping him is of a higher priority than not killing him. Once he's stopped, by the most effective means at my disposal, I'm not going to kill him if he isn't already dead, because that would be murder. I will call medical, and will render aid if it's entirely safe to do so.
I don't know how you became an adult in the defensive shooting/armed citizenry world without having this distinction drilled into you. It's fundamental to nearly every discussion of strategy and tactics that we have.
In Appalachia they are exactly the same thing. You have a target at close range you must put down very quickly before it moves (away from you in the case of hunting, towards you in the case of defense.) In these forests you don't have the luxury of waiting at some vantage point for an animal to walk into view like you do out west. The average maximum visibility is 50 yards. The wind is unpredictable. You need to be very fast, like a predatory animal. Your first shot must count, but you need to be ready to attack as many times as is necessary to make the animal drop. Handgun hunting in the Eastern woods is probably the best possible analogue for combat pistol shooting there is.Defensive shooting and the taking of game are not at all the same thing. The later requires deliberation, accuracy, and precision, and if the hunter does not have the opportunity to take the shot, he need not. In lawful defensive shooting, there is no time for deliberation; the target may be closing at 180 inches per second; hitting the hidden, moving internal body parts to effect a timely physical stop is a matter of chance; and several shots will necessarily be fired very rapidly to better that chance. Precision must be sacrificed for speed, and the defender does not have option of waiting for another target it things do not work out. The hunter's objective is to kill cleanly, while the defender's is to stop.
A defender is unlikely to be able to shoot an attacker "before it moves".In Appalachia they are exactly the same thing. You have a target at close range you must put down very quickly before it moves (away from you in the case of hunting, towards you in the case of defense.)
Think in terms of 3-5 yardsThe average maximum visibility is 50 yards.
Lawful defenders do not "attack'.Your first shot must count, but you need to be ready to attack as many times as is necessary to make the animal drop
You have discussed ideas of precision that will not be possible in defensive shooting except in hostage rescue situations.Handgun hunting in the Eastern woods is probably the best possible analogue for combat pistol shooting there is.
A defender is unlikely to be able to shoot an attacker "before it moves".
Think in terms of 3-5 yards
Lawful defenders do not "attack'.
You have discussed ideas of precision that will not be possible in defensive shooting except in hostage rescue situations.
Most of the muscles and tendons within reach don't intersect with major arteries. The fingers are very vulnerable. You aren't going to die if you lose a finger. The arteries lay on the insides of the arms and legs, which are generally not easy targets for a striking weapon.9mm ball ammo is probably the most known quantity in handgun history. You want to know what it does? It punches a hole completely through you. It might deflect off heavy curved bones and if it hits really strong bones or multiples, it might not exit. From my experience it usually does though, again unless it encounters the aforementioned.
BTW hacking someones limbs with a machete will easily kill them. Tourniquets didnt become required carry items for soldiers and cops because extremity wounds were nothing to worry about.
What?I mean "attack" in the literal sense of the word, not your idiosyncratic definition.
It requires much more precision.Does rescuing a hostage somehow make you shoot more accurately?
With an attacker moving at "Tueller" speed, shooting a beer-san sized group at 20 yards would require shooting much too slowly for self defense.If you understand "form" and train regularly, you should be able to keep your shots on a beer can at 20 yards through pure reflex.