Frangible bullets

"Richard Riley" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 05:44:17 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller"
wrote:
:You don;t shoot to "disable", you shoot to KILL.

A minor quibble - you shoot to STOP. Which means using bullets,
placement, etc, that also happen to maximise lethality, so it amounts
to the same thing, but the intent isn't (or shouldn't be) to kill.

The only sure STOP is a KILL.

If you need to shoot, your intent needs to be a "kill". No one is a good
enough sharpshooter under stress to play games with "disabling".

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Tom Sixkiller wrote:

So which vest (velcro or metal buttoned) do you think terrorists would
wear?

The military flak jackets sometimes come up in mil surplus stores, but the
ones
sold to cops are readily available all the time by mail order. I'd bet
they'd
pick the cop style.

Good bet!

Of course, the most reliable way to stop is one between the eyes.
It's kinda hard to justify at an inquest, though. That's why "center of
mass" is the
preferred method. But when in doubt, empty the magazine.

Discussion comes and goes about this. Factors like adrenaline and muscle
memory enter into the equations. The perp may be for all intents and
purposes, dead but keeps on coming and shooting. An interesting example is
the FBI training film of live action against the two criminals in the car
with handguns and AKs. Florida?
On the other hand, if you put two in the chest and one in the hip joint,
the broken mechanism bring the target down immediatley. The legs may keep
thrashing, but without bones to support the mass....
In that regard, a .45cal +P hollow-point will to the job adequately.
That's what I carry.
And, by the way, I have always been taught to use the gun only to STOP
the attacker. If s/he expires as a result.... well, that is collateral
damage.
Empty the magazine only if you must to make the stop. And you better
have a reload available for when his partner come charging out of the
shadows.

"Nomen Nescio" ] wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: "Tom Sixkiller"

The only sure STOP is a KILL.

If you need to shoot, your intent needs to be a "kill". No one is a good
enough sharpshooter under stress to play games with "disabling".

No, you've got to be politically correct, nowadays.

"Well, officer, I kept shooting until I was sure I stopped him" will be
viewed a LOT
different than "Well, officer, I kept shooting until I was sure I killed
him".
Even though they mean essentially the same thing.

Of course, the most reliable way to stop is one between the eyes.
It's kinda hard to justify at an inquest, though. That's why "center of
mass" is the
preferred method. But when in doubt, empty the magazine.


Quite so. The foibles of the current court systems are such they demonstrate
high levels of schizophrenia.
Unless you can demonstrate the ability to hit a moving target with several
shots into a 2" area, you better not tell a court you thought you could
merely shoot to _STOP_. Also, courts have often held that if the situation
warrants using DEADLY force, that DEAD must be your intent. Shooting "to
wound" only plays out in Hollyweird.

"Casey Wilson" wrote in message
...

Of course, the most reliable way to stop is one between the eyes.
It's kinda hard to justify at an inquest, though. That's why "center of
mass" is the
preferred method. But when in doubt, empty the magazine.

Discussion comes and goes about this. Factors like adrenaline and
muscle
memory enter into the equations. The perp may be for all intents and
purposes, dead but keeps on coming and shooting. An interesting example is
the FBI training film of live action against the two criminals in the car
with handguns and AKs. Florida?
On the other hand, if you put two in the chest and one in the hip
joint,
the broken mechanism bring the target down immediatley. The legs may keep
thrashing, but without bones to support the mass....

The only REAL one shot kill/stop is a shot to the (I'm going to botch the
spelling here I'm sure) Obdula Oblongota (the part of the brain you take out
when you shoot yourself in the mouth to commit suicide). Anything else
allows the hand to continue to shoot/detonate a bomb...

In that regard, a .45cal +P hollow-point will to the job adequately.
That's what I carry.
And, by the way, I have always been taught to use the gun only to STOP
the attacker. If s/he expires as a result.... well, that is collateral
damage.
Empty the magazine only if you must to make the stop. And you better
have a reload available for when his partner come charging out of the
shadows.

Quite. "Securing the situation" means taking out all the bad guys, even
those hang back.

"Nomen Nescio" ] wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: "Casey Wilson"

In that regard, a .45cal +P hollow-point will to the job adequately.
That's what I carry.
And, by the way, I have always been taught to use the gun only to
STOP
the attacker. If s/he expires as a result.... well, that is collateral
damage.

This (from Casey) confuses STOPPING an attack with "scaring off a perp".

Yea, that should "stop" someone. I carry the .40 S&W 'cause I've never
found
a comfortable and concealable .45.

Empty the magazine only if you must to make the stop. And you better
have a reload available for when his partner come charging out of the
shadows.

I carry 2 reloads, actually (22 rds total). I can accurately (@7 yrds)
empty A mag
in about 3-4 seconds. Even with a first shot kill, the other 7 rounds will
be flying
before someone "stops". 4 sec. to reload, so roughly 10 sec. to "stop" and
prepare
for the unseen partner.

I believe Massad Ayoob has some case stories on his web site of bad guys who
were DOWN, but not OUT. He also goes into the physiological aspens of the
SHOOTER and how difficult it is to hit a human target under the stress of
the moment (giving the lie to all the crap that Hollyweird put out about
"Shooting the guns out of their hands".

And here we make fun of journalists for assuming that all private
aircraft are Cubs.

They aren't?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Completely backwards. You never shoot an animal unless you're farily sure of
an _immediate_ kill (like mere seconds).

Perhaps I never do, but evidently I am in a small minority, given the
number of guys I've met tracking deer through my woods by the blood
trail.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

You don;t shoot to "disable", you shoot to KILL

Everyone here seems to live in a perfect world, where they never miss
the heart. Good on you, lads! For my part, I hope the sky marshal has
a soft-nosed bullet in that gun of his, because it would be just my
luck to be on the plane that wasn't guarded by Dirty Harry.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

If you need to shoot, your intent needs to be a "kill". No one is a good
enough sharpshooter under stress to play games with "disabling".

Were you born stupid, or did you have to work at it?

Nobody is suggesting that the sky marshal shoot so as to disable. We
are suggesting that he be so armed that a non-fatal hit will indeed
disable.

Am I wrong in thinking that you've never had to fire a gun while
someone was shooting at you?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com