Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

[Autonomous Titoists]

That should be illegal. How many guns do you need before you feel safe?!

A deer rifle isn't a good duck gun. Neither can be used during muzzleloader season, and of those three, none are ideal for pest control against varmints like squirrels. If you want something you can keep in your bedside table, you're pretty much limited to a handgun. So those are a few reasons why someone might own more than one gun without being a homicidal maniac.

Holy shit logic and reasoning burn him at the stake Spanish Inquisition this guy. /sarcasm

[Kernen]

No matter where you shoot someone, there is a chance of dying. Less of a chance is meaningless even an expert marksman would have near improbable odds of making a non lethal hit. If you are shooting someone, you better have the intent to kill. Kern has demonstrated why "shooting to wound" is not a good thing.

Most gunshots are nonlethal. out of the 100.000 that get shot annually in the US about 70% survive

Christ, read it already....

[Autonomous Titoists]

Shoot to wound is not a thing.
Let's just dwell on that until it sinks in, k?

Shooting a person is an unfathomably dangerous thing to do. If you shoot someone, you injure them 100% of the time. Sometimes, quite severely. Look at poor Jim Brady.

Intent to wound and intent to kill are quite different

Intent to wound is impractical in a high stress situation aiming isn't as easy as at the range fucking around with your buddies.

[Imperializt Russia]

Shoot to wound is not a thing.
Let's just dwell on that until it sinks in, k?

Shooting a person is an unfathomably dangerous thing to do. If you shoot someone, you injure them 100% of the time. Sometimes, quite severely. Look at poor Jim Brady.

Intent to wound and intent to kill are quite different

Because intent to wound is a misplaced fallacy based on the fact that not all gunshots are invariably lethal. All gunshots are potentially lethal.

There is no "shoot to wound", because no bodily gunshot wound is inherently less serious than another, besides a stirke to the vital organs. The human body, squishy and weak as it is, is remarkably resilient at surviving non-vital penetrations in certain circumstances. Far from all of them.

People like you then look at the mortality rates, see that more people live than die (there's this new thing called "medical treatment") and then think that you can shoot to wound.
You can't.
It's not a thing.

[Prezelly]

Most gunshots are nonlethal. out of the 100.000 that get shot annually in the US about 70% survive

100% of gunshots are potentially fatal.
100% of gunshots are an injury on the person shot.

Why in the name of fuck are you contesting this?
Is fatality the only thing that matters to you?

Yes 100% of gunshots are potentially fatal. However, only 30% are actually fatal.
I think you ad I are a part of different arguments, I looked this up in response to the earlier statements of "shooting to wound and shooting to kill aren't different" which we can see they are. I'm not saying that fatalities are all that matters, I'm saying that someone can shoot to wound someone and 2/3 times succeed in not killing

[Imperializt Russia]

100% of gunshots are potentially fatal.
100% of gunshots are an injury on the person shot.

Why in the name of fuck are you contesting this?
Is fatality the only thing that matters to you?

Yes 100% of gunshots are potentially fatal. However, only 30% are actually fatal.
I think you ad I are a part of different arguments, I looked this up in response to the earlier statements of "shooting to wound and shooting to kill aren't different" which we can see they are. I'm not saying that fatalities are all that matters, I'm saying that someone can shoot to wound someone and 2/3 times succeed in not killing

Because they've been lucky.
Because they've missed a vital organ or vessel, entirely by chance and through poor (from lethality terms) shot placement.
Because the person they've shot received medical treatment, without which, they would not have survived. Of people who are killed by firearms, most people die of blood loss. Most of those die before they can receive treatment.

11,000 people are not murdered by firearms, and that hasn't been the case since like the 1990s. Eight thousand people were killed in a firearm homicide in 2011. 51,000 people survive firearm assaults.
Are you suggesting to me that one in six people committing an assault with a firearm are shooting to wound?

[Ifreann]

How so?

Well, firstly, shooting at the lower portion of center mass has a far less chance of dying.

I would think that being shot in the stomach would pose a very serious risk of death. Maybe less than being shot in the chest, but that doesn't make shooting someone in the stomach "shooting to wound".

---

Shoot to wound is not a thing.
Let's just dwell on that until it sinks in, k?

Shooting a person is an unfathomably dangerous thing to do. If you shoot someone, you injure them 100% of the time. Sometimes, quite severely. Look at poor Jim Brady.

Intent to wound and intent to kill are quite different

If you are shooting at someone you are shooting to kill, no matter what you intend, because it is not realistically possible to shoot someone in such a way that they are not at a serious risk of dying. You may as well talk about trying to non-lethally run someone down with your car.

[Autonomous Titoists]

100% of gunshots are potentially fatal.
100% of gunshots are an injury on the person shot.

Why in the name of fuck are you contesting this?
Is fatality the only thing that matters to you?

Yes 100% of gunshots are potentially fatal. However, only 30% are actually fatal.
I think you ad I are a part of different arguments, I looked this up in response to the earlier statements of "shooting to wound and shooting to kill aren't different" which we can see they are. I'm not saying that fatalities are all that matters, I'm saying that someone can shoot to wound someone and 2/3 times succeed in not killing

In how many of those instances were they shooting to wound? There's a difference between intent ot wound and them getting lucky and catching one in the shoulder as opposed to the throat.

[Prezelly]

Most gunshots are nonlethal. out of the 100.000 that get shot annually in the US about 70% survive

Christ, read it already....

That article doesn't change the fact that I listed earlier.
If you survive gunshot you are most likely wounded. So about 2/3 of shots are wounding shots given that they aren't fatal

[Korva]

100% of gunshots are potentially fatal.
100% of gunshots are an injury on the person shot.

Why in the name of fuck are you contesting this?
Is fatality the only thing that matters to you?

Yes 100% of gunshots are potentially fatal. However, only 30% are actually fatal.
I think you ad I are a part of different arguments, I looked this up in response to the earlier statements of "shooting to wound and shooting to kill aren't different" which we can see they are. I'm not saying that fatalities are all that matters, I'm saying that someone can shoot to wound someone and 2/3 times succeed in not killing

this will be a lulzy defense at your voluntary manslaughter trial

[Imperializt Russia]

Christ, read it already....

That article doesn't change the fact that I listed earlier.
If you survive gunshot you are most likely wounded. So about 2/3 of shots are wounding shots given that they aren't fatal

This is a completely unsubstantiated assertion.

[Prezelly]

Yes 100% of gunshots are potentially fatal. However, only 30% are actually fatal.
I think you ad I are a part of different arguments, I looked this up in response to the earlier statements of "shooting to wound and shooting to kill aren't different" which we can see they are. I'm not saying that fatalities are all that matters, I'm saying that someone can shoot to wound someone and 2/3 times succeed in not killing

In how many of those instances were they shooting to wound? There's a difference between intent ot wound and them getting lucky and catching one in the shoulder as opposed to the throat.

I have no idea how many were shooting to wound. But, in the mix of "shooting to wound", and "intent to kill", 2/3 of people survive overall. So it is possible that many of these are shooting to wound given that people who want to kill will more likely try harder to actually kill

[Imperializt Russia]

In how many of those instances were they shooting to wound? There's a difference between intent ot wound and them getting lucky and catching one in the shoulder as opposed to the throat.

I have no idea how many were shooting to wound. But, in the mix of "shooting to wound", and "intent to kill", 2/3 of people survive overall. So it is possible that many of these are shooting to wound given that people who want to kill will more likely try harder to actually kill

Gee, maybe like five of six people who commit an assault and use their firearm in that assault?

[Prezelly]

That article doesn't change the fact that I listed earlier.
If you survive gunshot you are most likely wounded. So about 2/3 of shots are wounding shots given that they aren't fatal

This is a completely unsubstantiated assertion.

I've given proof before. Here it is again
http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/GunDeathandInjuryStatSheet3YearAverageFINAL.pdf

[Wallenburg]

That is exactly the opposite of what I just said.

http://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound

An excellent resource on the topic. You should give it a look

How can you call yourself a human being? Since our police officers cannot be expected to only wound suspects every time, they should automatically try to kill all suspects? WTF!?!?!
You horrify me.

[Korva]

http://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound

An excellent resource on the topic. You should give it a look

How can you call yourself a human being? Since our police officers cannot be expected to only wound suspects every time, they should automatically try to kill all suspects? WTF!?!?!

you cannot shoot to wound in the real world

if you are justified in shooting, that means you are justified in shooting to kill, because there is no material difference

[Kernen]

http://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound

An excellent resource on the topic. You should give it a look

How can you call yourself a human being? Since our police officers cannot be expected to only wound suspects every time, they should automatically try to kill all suspects? WTF!?!?!

Because shooting to wound doesn't reliably work, and doing so will cause officers to treat firearms as nonlethal. This causes people who don't require lethal force to be exposed to it. It's not a hard concept.

[Wallenburg]

How can you call yourself a human being? Since our police officers cannot be expected to only wound suspects every time, they should automatically try to kill all suspects? WTF!?!?!

Because shooting to wound doesn't reliably work, and doing so will cause officers to treat firearms as nonlethal. This causes people who don't require lethal force to be exposed to it. It's not a hard concept.

Okay, that is at least reasonable. I interpreted it as a license for police officers to shoot carelessly.

[Harpers Ferry]

http://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound

An excellent resource on the topic. You should give it a look

How can you call yourself a human being? Since our police officers cannot be expected to only wound suspects every time, they should automatically try to kill all suspects? WTF!?!?!
You horrify me.

Shooting to wound is a myth. If police forces are put in a situation where it is justified to use firearms then yes, the intent should be to kill, not attempt to wound.

[Autonomous Titoists]

Because shooting to wound doesn't reliably work, and doing so will cause officers to treat firearms as nonlethal. This causes people who don't require lethal force to be exposed to it. It's not a hard concept.

Okay, that is at least reasonable. I interpreted it as a license for police officers to shoot carelessly.

This thread focuses more on the common citizens shooting criminals, police will be too late for that to occur in front of them in a way where they can manipulate the outcome to come out in their favor.(In their favor being where no one is shot)

[Kernen]

Because shooting to wound doesn't reliably work, and doing so will cause officers to treat firearms as nonlethal. This causes people who don't require lethal force to be exposed to it. It's not a hard concept.

Okay, that is at least reasonable. I interpreted it as a license for police officers to shoot carelessly.

No. Not at all. I have a serious problem with how police comport themselves in that regard.

Do note that this only applies to situations where the officer is already forced to escalate to us in force, not just every suspect.

[Wallenburg]

How can you call yourself a human being? Since our police officers cannot be expected to only wound suspects every time, they should automatically try to kill all suspects? WTF!?!?!
You horrify me.

Shooting to wound is a myth. If police forces are put in a situation where it is justified to use firearms then yes, the intent should be to kill, not attempt to wound.

That I disagree with. Do you really want police officers to try to kill any suspect, not even necessarily a criminal, deemed to be dangerous?

[Kernen]

Okay, that is at least reasonable. I interpreted it as a license for police officers to shoot carelessly.

This thread focuses more on the common citizens shooting criminals, police will be too late for that to occur in front of them in a way where they can manipulate the outcome to come out in their favor.(In their favor being where no one is shot)

The theories that govern shooting to wound apply in both cases though.

[Harpers Ferry]

Shooting to wound is a myth. If police forces are put in a situation where it is justified to use firearms then yes, the intent should be to kill, not attempt to wound.

That I disagree with. Do you really want police officers to try to kill any suspect, not even necessarily a criminal, deemed to be dangerous?

If you would actually read my post, you would see that I said in situations that call for its use, such as being fired upon. Not "any suspect".

[Wallenburg]

End the shoot to kill vs shoot to wound debate by supporting research in advanced, effective nonlethal weapons. Incapacitate the home invader, suspect, etc., don't kill them on the spot.