Shoot-to-wound advocates watch too much television

imported post

If you are thinking how can I stop this guy with minimal damage

Click to expand...

You keep bringing this up, but I'm telling you it's a complete strawman--nobody but NOBODY in the self-defense community advocates this.

imported post

kparker wrote:

If you are thinking how can I stop this guy with minimal damage

Click to expand...

You keep bringing this up, but I'm telling you it's a complete strawman--nobody but NOBODY in the self-defense community advocates this.

Click to expand...

The title of this thread is dealing withshoot to wound or did I miss something. I know noone here advocates this. I was responding to the title and some of the posts here with my own opinions on that topic. I am agreeing its retarded to think I am going to shoot to wound. why waste time thinking that. That was the gist of my post. You can't think shoot to wound. That is movie myth stuff. I don't keep bringing it up I responded to you bringing it up after my post. Trying to explain what I thought might have been a badly worded post on my part, all relating to the topic of this thread, wich is [shadow=red]'shoot to wound advocates watch too much television'[/shadow].

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

kparker wrote:

If you are thinking how can I stop this guy with minimal damage

Click to expand...

You keep bringing this up, but I'm telling you it's a complete strawman--nobody but NOBODY in the self-defense community advocates this.

Click to expand...

The title of this thread is dealing withshoot to wound or did I miss something. I know noone here advocates this. I was responding to the title and some of the posts here with my own opinions on that topic. I am agreeing its retarded to think I am going to shoot to wound. why waste time thinking that. That was the gist of my post. You can't think shoot to wound. That is movie myth stuff. I don't keep bringing it up I responded to you bringing it up after my post. Trying to explain what I thought might have been a badly worded post on my part, all relating to the topic of this thread, wich is 'shoot to wound advocates watch too much television'.

Click to expand...

Amen!

As do "one shot wonders" who think people get hit with a .45 and go flying back 5 feet and through a window and die instantly. Unless its the "good guy" then they wind up in the hospital the next day smiling with their arm in a sling. :quirky

The human body is able to withstand amazing amounts of damage. Not only is a leg or arm not a vital area, but the body can auto adjust by shutting off blood flow and pain to the limbs. Shoot where the bullet has the chance to do the most damage with the best chance to stop the threat, period.

imported post

oldkim wrote:

Good video: I didn't say it couldn't be done but look at the cirumstances. The guy was sitting and pretty much holding still. Basically it's a situation where this guy wanted attention. He wasn't actively threatening, the sniper was in position and the guy held still enough and the sniper go the green light to attempt the shot.

I imagine the sniper was about 40 yards at best, maybe closer. The circumstances were good and fortunately for the guy the shot was taken. Change the scenario around. Have the guy moving around, waving and threatening and you've got a whole different shot placement - center mass.

Click to expand...

I believe the full story on that shot is that the marksman was able to zero his rifle at a gravel pit before getting into position. There by shooting a zero'd rifle at a known range.


Still takes skill timing and luck, but no more than shooting at a paper target in a breeze.