Link of the Day: Why “Shooting to Injure” Is Nothing But a Stupid Liberal Fantasy

Posted on August 22, 2014 6:00 pm

[High Praise! to The Truth About Guns]

Shooting To Wound and Selling Popcorn

[Think you have a link that’s IMAO-worthy? Send it to harvolson@gmail.com. If I use your link, you will receive High Praise! (assuming you remember to put your name in the email)]

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (3 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

10 Responses to “Link of the Day: Why “Shooting to Injure” Is Nothing But a Stupid Liberal Fantasy”

  1. NO_MO_BAMA says:

    The cop in Ferguson did shoot to wound the gentle savage giant, he wounded him 6 times. So what’s the problem?

  2. blarg says:

    The point of any defense shooting is to stop the threat. Immediately. It is not to kill. Only criminals shoot to kill. Law abiding members of society shoot to stop the threat. The injuries sustained in thus process tend to be lethal. So to answer Wolf Blitzer’s question in a defensive shooting we do shoot to injure as our goal is not to kill but to stop the attacker. Unfortunately those injuries tend to be fatal.

  3. Oppo says:

    Cops use lethal force when necessary to stop a lethal threat. Thus, I can’t agree with the claim that “only criminals shoot to kill.”

    And I’ll assume the military are also an exception to that statement.

  4. blarg says:

    since the Viet Nam era the US military strategy is “shoot to injure”. This is confirmed by the choice of the small fast round provided to the American soldier compared to soldiers in other armies that use much heavier rounds.

    The theory is that if you kill 1 enemy combatant you take out 1 combatant. If you injure 1 combatant you take out not only 1 combatant out of play but on average another 3 combatants who will assist the injured one, and stress support and supply lines all the way back to the source.

    Police officers (as well as civilians) protecting themselves may employ lethal force but their goal is not to kill. It is to stop the attack. Defensive actions may result in death but only a psychopath shoots to kill.

  5. Oppo says:

    Center Mass: Something even non-psychopaths are taught to aim for. Conceivably fatal.

  6. blarg says:

    like I said, use if lethal force can result in death – that’s why it’s called lethal force, but there’s a difference between using lethal force to accomplish an objective which may result in death and using lethal force to kill.

  7. Oppo says:

    Agreed.

  8. Oppo says:

    As long as one isn’t deluded about the very implication of using lethal force.

  9. Ten-Ten says:

    And snipers?

  10. FredKey says:

    It’s a lot harder to punch someone out than the movies and TV shows would have you think, too. A good sock may take the fight out of a guy, but rendering him unconscious is really hard.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>