Page 1 of 28 123451121 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 280

Thread: Guns in America

  1. #1

    Default Guns in America

    Now hold your horse, i am not saying that the US should ban guns or make stricter laws. This topic is about how they are used.

    I have been watching a lot of series recently, and it made me think, that even if it is fiction, one thing stays consistent. Killshot.

    They always aim for the chest because it is the biggest target, but in my opinion the legs aren't so hard to hit. This year a man was killed while walking to a police car, a sergeant in the car shot him down (a woman by the way) and said, "He was walking with a purpose"

    Shot in the chest, DoA. She could just as easily have aimed the gun at him in order to stop, or shot him in the leg to get him to stop. If your argument is that the leg is always moving when walking or running, it always circles back, So anyone who knows how to hit a target can shoot for the legs.

    In my opinion, having guns is not a bad thing, but going for a killshot with every chance you get makes me mad.

  2. #2


    There are several reasons that law enforcement are trained to aim for the chest and none of it has to do with a killshot.

    First, like you said, it presents the largest target so the chance of missing is less likely. Aiming for the legs would be risky at best. The chance of missing is high requiring follow up shots, the angle makes ricochets more likely, and the amount of mass the bullet moves through makes it more likely to exit through the back and less likely to stop the target.

    Secondly, a shot to the chest is almost guaranteed to incapacitate the target. This is the ultimate goal because once a law enforcement officer has determined it's necessary to fire their weapon, their life and the lives of others depend on quickly stopping the target. Also, a shot to the chest is not guaranteed to kill; with the growth in medical science a person is more likely than ever to survive the wound.

    Third, in the vast number of times an officer feels it's necessary to draw their weapon, only a small percentage end up firing it. Aiming for the chest is more intimidating and allows the officer to keep an eye on the target's hands and speak face to face with them. This just wouldn't be feasible while aiming at the legs.

    Fourth, and finally, in a situation where a gun is drawn, the officer is going to have a million things going through their mind and making very fast decisions. The best thing that can be done is to train them to handle all incidents the same so that when the actual time comes, they act in a relatively controlled manner. Making another decision to aim for the chest or legs would just be another point where the wrong decision is made and innocent lives pay the price.

    As a final side note, even though the press coverage continues to go up on these situations, they aren't exactly rising in number. Now that tasers are becoming popular, more and more officers are able to handle a dangerous situation from a distance without taking potentially lethal action. Also, just because I referred to the person as a 'target' throughout the post doesn't mean I show absolutely no empathy towards that person. Anytime somebody is shot it is a tragedy and, especially when mistakes are made, they need to be studied and analyzed so that better training techniques are made so that the mistakes are less likely to happen in the future.

  3. #3


    Arcituthis covered this well. A police officer is only supposed to use lethal force if he believes his life or the lives of others are in eminent danger. The problem of late has been that police officers have been shooting and killing unarmed people, so one has to wonder if their lives were in that much danger. Years ago, most people had little or no ability to record crimes in action, but now, almost everyone has a cell phone and so we're seeing a lot more crimes which end in fatalities. Now, we get to make the call and we can be horrified at what we are seeing.

    Unlike television shows, there is nothing sanitary about a shooting. It's always a horrific experience. The gun, or any violence, should always be the last resort. At the same time, if a police officer is being charged by a huge man who looks like he can bench 350 lbs, that man could easily take the gun away from the officer, and then a split second decision must be made. I don't envy them. It's a very difficult job.

  4. #4


    Its not just law enforcement that are trained to aim for the chest. Almost every private citizen with a concealed weapons permit or any self-defense training is also trained to go for the chest shot. The thing about guns is, the only time you should draw it is if you are willing to kill the person you are drawing it on. The goal is to bring a quick resolution to the situation, and if it means killing someone in the defense of you or your own, so be it. Its just the cold hard truth about it.

    As for shooting and killing unarmed people, a person can be unarmed and still a deadly threat. All it takes is a split second of stupidity from a potential non-law abiding citizen for the officer, or anyone, to be in a precieved life threatening situation.

  5. #5


    Building on what Arcituthis said: when a situation meriting force arises, you'll very likely be running on a massive dose of epinephrine. Which is fine if all you need is quick, powerful gross motor skills; fine motor control (like, say, aiming for smaller target) are severely impaired. A crude way of simulating this is to stay up for a several hours past bed time, sprint a mile or so (get that heart rate over 140), then immediately try to hand write a quick, neat letter to your mother.

  6. #6


    Legally, drawing a firearm and shooting is using lethal force. Demonstrating anything other than lethal force was required places the shooter in an uncomfortable legal position. Brandishing a weapon is illegal in most places. Warning shots are illegal in most places. The only legal activity is using lethal force to stop a deadly attack.

    Injuring a person unnecessarily makes a person civilly liable for expensive medical costs. Do you want to be the person to cause a permanent knee or leg injury? Those cause a lot of pain and suffering and make someone unable to work. The person causing these injuries must pay for the damage they caused. This is expensive. Law enforcement and civilian training teaches to avoid injuries with firearms.

    In Oregon, a person injured while they are committing a felony may sue the property owner and the person who was only defending themself. In other words, an armed burglar may sue the property owner and the person who shot the burglar because the burglar now has a leg injury and can no longer steal TVs or work. However, Oregon law does not allow relatives of a criminal to sue in the event that a criminal dies of injuries which occured while committing a crime. That is messed up. I doubt anyone in Oregon is aiming for the knees.

    On TV, shoot outs are a common thing where just another bad guy is killed. Reality is much different. The CDC reported 516 law enforcement shootings and 281 for the category which includes civilian self-defense in 2013. Police and law abiding civilians are very reluctant to fire their weapons. The lives on both sides of the gun are forever changed. There are no second chances.

    Outside of Hollywood, no body wants to see some one shot in the chest. However, when guns are drawn for real, there becomes only one thought: make the situation stop fast. We know only one sure way: aim for the chest. Even then, 80% of rounds fired still miss.

  7. #7


    In dependence of class of a gun and distance, you can be better or worse into shot whereever you want. That´s technic point.

    Cops are very prepotent and lot of times charged of fear. And act in "their way." Thats´s point of my experience, guess here in EU is more frecuent using "the defense" by the cops. Seems US (and not only US) cops are used to shot and later ask, which is property of militar camp, not police.

    And at the point to using firearms in general... Everyone has right of defense. I know how to use firearms and explosives, just I was three years militar - sniper and "bridge destroyer." But prefere don´t use firearms. Mostly I had enough defense with "nothing" or some long steel (no fire arm.)

    Finally, the worst isn´t a gun, if not some asshole who´s holding it, indiferent if is a cop or not.
    Last edited by CrazySmoker; 10-Sep-2015 at 12:18.

  8. #8


    Why is it the rest of the civilized world seems not to be so gun dependent and the US is? Maybe the solution for the US is disband the police forces and give everyone a gun.

  9. #9


    arcituthis summed it up very accurately. My only contention here is the use of the phrase "stopping the target" as a euphemism for severely injuring or killing a person. Like "collateral damage", we use the expression to numb ourselves to the reality of the situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremiah View Post
    Injuring a person unnecessarily makes a person civilly liable for expensive medical costs. Do you want to be the person to cause a permanent knee or leg injury? Those cause a lot of pain and suffering and make someone unable to work. The person causing these injuries must pay for the damage they caused. This is expensive. Law enforcement and civilian training teaches to avoid injuries with firearms.
    Money has always been a tempting motive for killing people, but what kind of culture are we where the law supports a person who shoots with the specific intent to kill a potentially threatening person in order to save money? Conventional wisdom I've heard in the neighborhood is that after you shoot someone to stop him from committing some crime, put a bullet in his head to avoid lawsuits. If our laws give the appearance of supporting such a position, that is just plain evil and needs to be changed.

  10. #10


    Im not speaking on this from a law enforcement perspective, because it's not one I'm familiar with, but I can say that from the military perspective. We're trained specifically to aim for the torso/center of mass, because that is the most reliable, effective way of quickly eliminating a threat and moving on to the next.

    Asking a cop to specifically aim for a difficult to hit part of the body in a heated situation (and granted, I'm a very good shot and very familiar with firearms) seems borderline naive and wishful thinking.

    If I find myself in a situation where I'm forced to use my weapon, I would personally want to find the least nuanced, most effective way to end the situation where I'm alive and well, and the other guy isn't.

Similar Threads

  1. Does anyone in here shoot guns??
    By Hyperlitegreen in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-Apr-2013, 02:18
  2. Adult diapers in South America? ¿Pañales en Latino America?
    By snowbird in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-Oct-2010, 03:26
  3. Guns: what have you owned or shot?
    By Raccoon in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 151
    Last Post: 18-Nov-2009, 20:20
  4. Guns!
    By Fire_lupine06 in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 05-Jan-2009, 00:27
  5. Your experience with firearms (Guns)
    By Jeremiah in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 22-Aug-2008, 01:03

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  • - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community. is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.