"Shoot to wound, not to kill," say the morons (including our own Dear Leader)


Vort
 Share

Recommended Posts

Aim for the legs rather than the torso, say some people.  I can do it at a shooting range.  That target is not moving.  You're not in fear for your mortal life and your heart rate is way lower.  You are also not in a low light and/or chaotic situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

Aim for the legs rather than the torso, say some people.  I can do it at a shooting range.  That target is not moving.  You're not in fear for your mortal life and your heart rate is way lower.  You are also not in a low light and/or chaotic situation.

Great points. 
 

It’s also true that probably 90%+ of cops don’t wake up in the morning hoping to shoot people and only use it as an absolute last resort. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2023 at 6:31 PM, NeuroTypical said:

What you don't seem to understand, is taser and pepper spray use is about as safe as walking down the road, or standing in a park.  There's about an equal chance of getting killed by lightning, as there is of dying from a taser shot.  Life is a risky endeavor.  There is never, ever, EVER a 0% chance of dying.  Sitting safe in your safe house in your safe neighborhood, you still have a nonzero chance of dying.   

The two prominent nonlethals used by law enforcement, tasers and pepper spray, are safe and effective.  Both are excellent alternatives to getting shot.  Depending on the circumstance, they can be better options than getting subdued physically, with or without a nightstick.   They're good at bringing a dangerous person into a safely restrained state, while keeping both them and the officer safe.  I'm a massive fan of nonlethals.  That video I posted?  Before it was taken, I wasn't sure what I thought of cops having/using tasers.  After that video, I was a total fan.  I'm glad cops carry tasers.

Went looking for a different news story earlier, and these came up as well:

https://www.kxxv.com/news/child-seeks-50m-from-la-for-dads-death-from-stun-gun-zaps

According to the lawsuit, police hit a suspect with their stun guns six times in one minute, triggering heart palpitations that ended in heart failure.  

This is the kind of thing I was talking about, where stun guns can be just as deadly as regular weapons when misused or there are additional factors at work.

I also found another one where a man in France was suing police in Paris after he was brutally beaten while attempting to photograph a clash between police and protesters. The police mistook him for a protester and assaulted him in such a fashion as to leave him functionally sterilized, the latest in a long line of lawsuits against Paris police; given the details I'm hesitant to post the link. 

Even if something is ostensibly "less than lethal" or "meant to subdue", it can still have life-altering consequences or even kill if in the hands of cops who aren't attentive or improperly trained. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ironhold said:

This is the kind of thing I was talking about, where stun guns can be just as deadly as regular weapons when misused or there are additional factors at work.

Even if something is ostensibly "less than lethal" or "meant to subdue", it can still have life-altering consequences or even kill if in the hands of cops who aren't attentive or improperly trained. 

Ok, I understand your reasoning.  But now I don't get why you're hung up on tasers.  There are an endless list of items that fit the criteria you describe.  Windshield wipers, hammers, turtles, USB charging cords, toddlers, dishwashers, ball point pens, cans of soup, every single one of them can be "just as deadly as regular weapons when misused". 

People can hit someone with a turtle and trigger heart palpitations that end in heart failure.  People can assault someone with a USB cable in such a fashion as to leave them functionally sterilized.  I personally know someone whose 3 yr old daughter was certainly "less than lethal", but she still managed to yank his arm in such a way that he needed rotator cuff surgery.

I'm trying to see how you have anything relevant at all to say about tasers.  It's really sounding like your valid points are all about inattentive, improperly trained, or bad cops.  And if that's your worry, have you considered that giving a cop the ability to reach for something other than a gun is the best thing ever?   Cops restrain and cuff people.  You can get people into cuffs by shooting them, clubbing them, fighting them.  Or you can tase them.   Which do you think is the best available option?

Again, my four second bit of torture during that taser demonstration helped me make my mind up.  I'd much rather be tased than shot, or hit with a nightstick, or even wrestled into handcuffs.  

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Ok, I understand your reasoning.  But now I don't get why you're hung up on tasers.  There are an endless list of items that fit the criteria you describe.  Windshield wipers, hammers, turtles, USB charging cords, toddlers, dishwashers, ball point pens, cans of soup, every single one of them can be "just as deadly as regular weapons when misused". 

People can hit someone with a turtle and trigger heart palpitations that end in heart failure.  People can assault someone with a USB cable in such a fashion as to leave them functionally sterilized.  I personally know someone whose 3 yr old daughter was certainly "less than lethal", but she still managed to yank his arm in such a way that he needed rotator cuff surgery.

I'm trying to see how you have anything relevant at all to say about tasers.  It's really sounding like your valid points are all about inattentive, improperly trained, or bad cops.  And if that's your worry, have you considered that giving a cop the ability to reach for something other than a gun is the best thing ever?   Cops restrain and cuff people.  You can get people into cuffs by shooting them, clubbing them, fighting them.  Or you can tase them.   Which do you think is the best available option?

Again, my four second bit of torture during that taser demonstration helped me make my mind up.  I'd much rather be tased than shot, or hit with a nightstick, or even wrestled into handcuffs.  

I know someone who lost a relative to excessive stun gun usage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ironhold said:

I know someone who lost a relative to excessive stun gun usage. 

I'm sorry to hear that.  I can understand why someone might feel a little anti-taser after such an association.  Like folks who give up driving after witnessing or being involved in an auto accident where someone is killed.  

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2023 at 4:15 AM, Godless said:

That's why they have tasers.

 

If someone is wearing thick clothes (like a really thick winter coat in Utah because it's really cold there) or really high on some drugs Tasers may have minimal effect.

People are killed by police with weapons in other nations as well, just not at the numbers that Americans are killed by their police forces. 

 

On 1/20/2023 at 10:41 AM, NeuroTypical said:

I am in 100% full support of retraining cops in this fashion, as soon as the bad guys reach full compliance with a similar program first. 

Totally serious here.  The exact nanosecond we live in a reality where the bad guys are all intentionally aiming, in every single instance, for nonfatal areas of their opponents, then count me in on having our cops do the same.   Until that day, which surely can't be too far away, Imma have to temporarily withhold my enthusiastic support.

The problem in the US that most see with the Police forces in the United States is that the police "APPEAR" to be more trigger happy then most other first world countries.  You have to go to the third world (and in many instances, really bad places in the 3rd world) to find similar statistics of police violence and deaths caused by the police.

The questions that people pose is WHY are you so much more likely to die from the police in the United States than any other civilized first world nation by an order of magnitude?

Many theories have been floated.  Most float around the idea that the requirements to be a police officer are so much lower in the United States than anywhere else.  Instead of wanting to have the highest IQ's, some departments actually limit how smart someone might be and refuse to higher those who seem extremely smart.  The training in general seems to be a lower standard in regards to de-escalation and relying on your ability to communicate rather than use a weapon.  Another is that some nations require a minimum of a four year degree or better just to be a police officer on top of a year or two of training whereas in the US the requirements are far lower.  In many departments in the US it is a matter of a 3 to 4 month training course with no other education beyond a High School degree in comparison.  Some feel it is a matter of police being too scared and focusing on protecting police officers at the expense of protecting the public. 

There are a whole bunch of theories, but no one really knows for certain.  It could be none of those, or all of those.  What it seems to be apparent though is that the United States has a policing problem unique in the First World.  Their police kill a significant number of people.  Far more than other First world nations by percentage wise.  The question is WHY this is occurring and HOW to change this. 

One problem that DOES seem obvious is that many police departments have no interest in trying to change the status quo.  They are happy with the status quo that American Policemen are a bigger threat to their own citizens than most other first world nations police forces.  Before change can happen, those who must affect the change must decide that change is needed.  Only when they decide to change something for the better and then try to figure out the best way to do it can change actually occur.  There are probably some departments out there that are trying to instigate change, but in many instances they are alone in the matter with very little support from their fellow fraternity (or I suppose today, the sorority as well??).

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh.  Nothing biased, agenda-driven, or context-lacking in your post JohnsonJones.  No, not at all. :D 

Let's produce a bit of data, and see what phrases like "much more likely to die" and "far more percentage wise" means to you:

 

image.thumb.png.f5105b9ce606286a714167a295377d4f.png

Yeah, the US, with it's 2nd amendment and private gun-ownership that about doubles all the rest of the 1st world put together, has slightly more per capita police shootings than the other 1st world countries.  At least, the reporting ones - please note that Italy, Spain, Barcelona, Russia, Austria, the Chech Republic, Greece, Turkey, China, South Korea, and others don't report data, so we can't be sure.

I don't know about you, but when I view this context, it makes your entire post seem fatally and ludicrously biased.  Yeah.  The US is an absolute bloodbath compared to civilized places like France and Norway.  At least, what, three pixels worth of bloodbath more.  It must be all the low-IQ poorly educated apathetic scared cops who sit back content to be such a deadly threat to the citizens they're sworn to protect.  🙄   I mean, yeah, you are couching your floated notions by admitting the possibility that none of the reasons you mention might explain why cops shoot citizens in the US.  But you totally miss what seems one of the most obvious notions to float:

Armed bad guys trying to kill cops.

There.  I solved the riddle for you.

 

 

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

You have to go to the third world (and in many instances, really bad places in the 3rd world) to find similar statistics of police violence and deaths caused by the police.

It's a shame you didn't do even basic "I wonder if I'm being lied to" research before making such an obviously false claim.  

A couple questions for you: 
1- If you had to guess, what would you say are the 7 counties in the US with the highest numbers of police killings?  Who's democrat run and who is republican run?  Anything interesting or unique about them that might stand out as a reason?
2- If you removed the top 7, what impact do you think that have on our overall country numbers?

 

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

One problem that DOES seem obvious is that many police departments have no interest in trying to change the status quo.  They are happy with the status quo that American Policemen are a bigger threat to their own citizens than most other first world nations police forces.  Before change can happen, those who must affect the change must decide that change is needed.  Only when they decide to change something for the better and then try to figure out the best way to do it can change actually occur.

Dude, it's not even an election year.  This blurb literally reads like it's straight out of the standard progressive "lie, polarize, and insult" playbook.  I'm surprised you didn't also make it about white privilege.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Armed bad guys trying to kill cops.

100% (emphasis added)

One thing that the anti-gun lobby is correct about is the fairly obvious statement that "If we didn't have any guns, there wouldn't be any gun deaths."  Well, duh.  But how do you get them out of the hands of criminals?

The big question that I have is why are there so many maniacs in the US trying to do mass shootings for seemingly no rational reason?  Conservatives will point to may social engineering explanations.  And they're partially right.  But other developed nations are kicking such things into high gear.  But they aren't seeing mass killings rise like we are in the US.  So, whaaddup?

My theory: The US "says" that we have freedoms as enshrined in the Constitution.  Other countries don't.  They have their own list of rights, to be sure.  But nowhere else purports the promise of the "Land of Opportunity" and the "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave" as we do.  When we're spoon-fed this idea of supreme freedom, but we're being crushed for things that the government promises we have freedoms for, there is a disconnect that the citizenry can't handle.  And this is true of both Left & Right. 

  • People know what their freedoms "should" be.
  • They know what rights they're "guaranteed" in the Constitution.
  • And deep down, most people really do know between right and wrong.  But too many are just not willing to admit it.
  • They know when reality is not in line with the promise.

And even with this, the statistical per capita difference between the US and other developed countries is so small that it is easily explained by a plethora of societal differences that have nothing to do with gun rights or police tendencies.

I think the police in the United States are the best and most honorable in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2023 at 9:21 AM, Carborendum said:

.....

One thing that the anti-gun lobby is correct about is the fairly obvious statement that "If we didn't have any guns, there wouldn't be any gun deaths." 

......

 

This statement is extremely misleading.  Even as a youth I knew enough about guns that I could build one from the contents of 80% or more of our nation’s garages.  I also knew how to make a bomb – perhaps not as effective as what is currently available on the internet but I knew enough to do damage to things.  Besides there are many ways other than guns (or bombs) that can be employed to endanger others for those so minded.  We may not be able to end violence, but we do need to get better at solving and identifying why someone becomes homicidal.    

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the statements in this thread is why I believe that to become a voting citizen (or elected official) one must serve in the military (trained for combat) for at least 2 year.  All too often – especially with elected officials and those that think themselves politically knowledgeable – speak out and become active about things they know nothing about and have zero experience.  I believe that before someone attempts to tell others about how to carry a firearm that they need the experience themselves.  I understand there are those that do not want to carry and that is fine but to regulate those that do – there needs to be understanding and experience.  I believe this was a critical part of the problem with the war in heaven.

I believe there is another problem about law enforcement that seems to be dealt with poorly in our society.   It seems that our method of “punishment” often tends to make criminal worse, rather than to rehabilitate.   Starting with juvenile corrections; it seems that we tend in assisting resistance to civil and law obedience and more towards the development career criminals.  One question that I do not think many are willing to even think about -- is why do we tolerate repeat offenders – not just in society but more critically in our correction facilities influencing others?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2023 at 7:20 PM, NeuroTypical said:

Heh.  Nothing biased, agenda-driven, or context-lacking in your post JohnsonJones.  No, not at all. :D 

Let's produce a bit of data, and see what phrases like "much more likely to die" and "far more percentage wise" means to you:

 

image.thumb.png.f5105b9ce606286a714167a295377d4f.png

Yeah, the US, with it's 2nd amendment and private gun-ownership that about doubles all the rest of the 1st world put together, has slightly more per capita police shootings than the other 1st world countries.  At least, the reporting ones - please note that Italy, Spain, Barcelona, Russia, Austria, the Chech Republic, Greece, Turkey, China, South Korea, and others don't report data, so we can't be sure.

Note I said first world.  On your chart itself it appears the US has more than any first world nations and more than many third world nations.  Luxembourg is the first one listed on your chart after the US (First 1st World nation listed).  It had ONE shooting on average annually.  Of course, in relation to it's population, that means that it is at 16.9 comparatively.

France on the otherhand had 26 shootings annually which puts it at 3.8% (a factor which means the US has approximately OVER 750%  the amount of police killings percentage wise than France.  Norway had 1 which puts it at 1.9% meaning the US exceeds it by 1,500%).

I'm glad you mentioned France because it has one of the HIGHEST percentages among First World nations for police violence.  It IS beaten by Australia (at a whole 6.5%, which comparatively to other first world nations IS sort of a rabidly high number) which still puts the US as having 400% more of a chance to die by police than in one of the other highest police violent states of the First World. 

Most 1st world nations are nowhere close to the US, and the US beats them (just looking at percentages, if we go by RAW numbers of killed it would look far worse) by factors of 5 to 7 times.  If you told me that my chances of dying in a plane crash were 5X greater on one companies airplanes than another...I'd probably NOT choose to fly on that airline. 

We are closer on par with Mexico's rate (30%) than most other First World nations (and Mexico isn't normally considered first world...and Mexico also has a pretty bad reputation for violence between the police and other groups that have gone wild in vying for control of Mexico recently...probably NOT a good percentage to have a comparison to).  In fact, the US compares more favorably to 3rd world nations in police violence than First World. 

The closest we have would be Luxumbourg, which I noted above.  That was due to how low their population size is...and it is ONE death on average per year.  ONE.  The US figure you are using is 946 which was for the year 2020.  That number increased to 1176 for 2022.

 

PS:  2020 had higher numbers of fatalities than 2021 in france (2021 was abnormal from what I can tell, for France), but for the reasons to give France it's abnormally high percentage in relation to what is normal in a First World nation.  In addition, France generally scored rather high on it's police killings percentage related to the population in comparison to other First world nations as long as we exclude the United States.  We used the 2020 numbers, especially as that is the numbers which were being used for the US for the 28.54% as well).  Numbers have actually DECREASED for the US up until 2020, with high's in the 10's reaching over 1500 deaths annually at some points. 

Edited by JohnsonJones
changed % as I was off by a factor of 10, which is why I'm a historian and not a mathematician. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2023 at 9:53 AM, Traveler said:

This statement is extremely misleading.  Even as a youth I knew enough about guns that I could build one from the contents of 80% or more of our nation’s garages.  I also knew how to make a bomb – perhaps not as effective as what is currently available on the internet but I knew enough to do damage to things.  Besides there are many ways other than guns (or bombs) that can be employed to endanger others for those so minded.  We may not be able to end violence, but we do need to get better at solving and identifying why someone becomes homicidal.    

 

The Traveler

 

To be honest, I think (this is a PERSONAL feeling, I have no evidence to back it up right now) that more of us from our generation knew about guns and were comfortable around them then there is among the younger generations today. 

I don't recall many school or mass shootings either.  Something has DEFINITELY changed.

If we talk about the police, ironically it may be the UNIFICATION of police training that has changed.  It used to be that there could be a 4 month training school, but there were really no standards.  There was no "police" culture nationwide.  There was no massive training in certain areas.  I think one area that increased was the focus to protect the officer at all costs, rather than the focus on sacrifice for the public at all costs. 

There has been an increase on the focus to preserve Police lives.  This is not inherently a BAD thing, but I wonder if it has had unplanned repercussions in how they are teaching a new trainee to react. 

I also wonder if more violence in our society is due to less people knowing and understanding about guns.  Instead of learning they are tools to be used (like a hammer or other item) they don't get taught, see things from TV and movies (which are violent) and then go out and buy guns planning violence rather than how guns should be utilized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All righty...

The video *starts* as host Matthew Patrick looking at whether or not the increasingly powerful cultivars of peppers can potentially cause physical harm to a person. 

What he found is that while in normal circumstances the body processes capsaicin so fast it doesn't have time to do any lasting harm (giving us the health benefits of peppers without the lasting consequences), there are situations where this isn't the case. 

In particular, he found actual studies noting that pepper spray can in fact harm the body if a person is subjected to enough of it, to the point that individuals have actually been killed because they inhaled so much it essentially left their lungs unable to properly function for how irritated and inflamed they were. It's to the point that OSHA is now questioning if police academies should continue the practice of having officers be subjected to their own pepper spray as an effort to teach them what it's like to be hit. 

It's yet another reminder that "non-lethal" is not entirely appropriate in describing the alternative methods law enforcement has available. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

It's yet another reminder that "non-lethal" is not entirely appropriate in describing the alternative methods law enforcement has available. 

I grant that pepper spray can be dangerous or even lethal in some circumstances (like if you submerge someone's head in a bucket of pepper spray and hold them there). I still agree with NT's point that the odds of death by pepper spray are vanishingly small, and in any case much better than being shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2023 at 9:29 AM, JohnsonJones said:

 

I'm glad you mentioned France because it has one of the HIGHEST percentages among First World nations for police violence.  It IS beaten by Australia (at a whole 6.5%, which comparatively to other first world nations IS sort of a rabidly high number) 

 

On 1/21/2023 at 12:42 PM, askandanswer said:

They shoot at people who they think might be bad or who they think might do something bad. They shoot at people who scare them or who are behaving in a scary manner. They shoot at people with mental illness. Not all of them are bad people.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2023 at 7:19 PM, JohnsonJones said:

if more violence in our societ

Is our society really getting more violent?  Not sure about that. Perhaps we’re just hearing about the violence more because of widespread media accessibility?

 

In the 1900‘s boxing was barefisted and we were told to “walk off” concussions. I’m also constantly told how “soft” new generations are. So which is it? Are we more violent or are we getting softer? 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With various daughters reaching the age where they vector off in different directions, Mamma and I are prepping them with various things that'll hopefully never be needed, but if they are, they'll certainly come in handy.  

image.png.6ceb28426dc93ed1364d89fe988e65a5.png

The gel, because there's less blowback.
The UV tinted stuff, to make it easier for authorities to identify the assailant later.
The extra strong stuff, to make sure it'll be effective no matter how drunk, high, or amped the bad guy might be.

I'm ordering an extra one, so we can empty one in practice.  

I'm quite happy to have this readily available, safe, effective, and legal pretty much everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

With various daughters reaching the age where they vector off in different directions, Mamma and I are prepping them with various things that'll hopefully never be needed, but if they are, they'll certainly come in handy.  

image.png.6ceb28426dc93ed1364d89fe988e65a5.png

The gel, because there's less blowback.
The UV tinted stuff, to make it easier for authorities to identify the assailant later.
The extra strong stuff, to make sure it'll be effective no matter how drunk, high, or amped the bad guy might be.

I'm ordering an extra one, so we can empty one in practice.  

I'm quite happy to have this readily available, safe, effective, and legal pretty much everywhere.

Which brand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share