Ummmm ok if someone is trying to kill me why would i not want to defend myself. Im sorry but I'm more worried about returning home to my family than the morality they have a weapon you drop them without a question
You can drop them without killing them though. This is the difference between killing and neutralizing. Neutralized means that they are out of the fight, either dead or otherwise incapacitated.
In combat you shoot to kill. End of story. There are no rules in combat that has been proven countless times by history. Sobody comes in with all these rules of what they can and cant do and then get their asses kicked by someone who doesn't follow the rules. You can plan, provide, train all day but once that first bullet is fired all thought goes out the window if you are in the middle of a battle and you try to be the nice guy the enemy will chew you up and shit you out without a second thought. Best to not give them the chance. Kill them you will prevent more casualties that way.
I'm currently serving in the RCN (Royal Canadian Navy). At BTQ (Basic Training Qualification) we were taught to aim for the extremeties, and only go for the head unless there's no other choice.
Oh i totally believe that people do follow this rule. Im just saying its dangerous when your enemy follows no such rule. Id feel safe knowing that the guy on the other end of my gun is dead and posses no threat to me or my friends
A wounded soldier is more burdensome on an army than a dead soldier. But if there is a situation in which you don't feel safe enough to simply wound the enemy, shoot to kill.
False. What sissy shit is this, aim for the chest and head, produce casualties. Killing isn't necessary if you've effectively disabled your assailant, but I know none of the bombs that were dropped were meant to just injure people.
Who here thinks that if a soldier shoots an enemy soldier, but he doesn't die, then the first soldier walks up and shoots the second guy in the head? If the enemy doesn't die but stops fighting you, mission accomplished!
When I was a police officer, if we had to shoot we shot to "stop the aggression" not to kill.
Thats different thats a police setting. And if im not mistaken if police are involved in a firefight with say an active shooter, dont they shoot to kill? Dont SWAT teams shoot to kill (riot police excluded)
Ok I completely agree with this, but why TF Is that soldier that's closest to the camera holding his gun like that?!? THATS NOT HOW YOU HOLD FIREARMS, DUMBASS.
Yeah that way they can break free and harm our troops. Not to mention that that wouldn't even work. Fuck that. When I am confronted by an armed combatant, I am shooting him two to the chest and two to the face and will proceed with firing until he is no longer a threat to my friendlies. If he dies, he dies. He was willing to kill me, I'm not willing to let him kill us.
When I was a police officer, if we had to shoot we shot to "stop the aggression" not to kill.
if thats true shouldn't we invent like an automatic rifle but it works like a taser?