The firearms homicide rate in Japan fluctuates between single digits to double digits every year meanwhile the us be hitting the triple digits every day
Not shooting to kill.
For one, the criminals have much less to be afraid of, and shooting to injure is much riskier. You could miss, or the shot would trigger an adrenaline rush in the bad guy, or any number of bad things could happen.
You don't need to shoot everything to kill. Take the Australian police. Three rounds is the most a general duties officer can fire from a pistol, all to the legs to an armed person.
How could anyone thinks that's good?
You don't draw unless someone's life is on the line, and when that happens you are best off shooting to kill the bad guy. How hard is that to understand?
What would injuring a gunman's legs do amyways? Even if you didn't miss, he'd still be able to fight.
2
·
Edited 8 years ago
deleted
· 8 years ago
Like famousone, I was taught to not point a gun at something I don't want to kill. I was taught this as a civilian. It's how most parents teach their kids about gun safety, because accidents happen and if you've pointed a gun at someone or something, there is a chance they could die. Of course as we get older some parents amend their statements. And it's shoot to ensure your safety, but be prepared all the same.
The point of the military is to accomplish an objective. Typically in the interest of their nation.
And one shot to the legs won't disable someone you actually need to shoot.
Assuming that one shot lands. Small moving targets are hard to hit, and legs are smaller and more mobile than the torso.
All these gun posts are really pointless no matter which side of the argument you fall on. The only numbers people should look at is how many violent crimes, violent crimes are any that have any level of violence from simple assault to rape to murder, and the population of that country or area. Unsurprisingly, news agencies and politicians don't like to use those numbers because on the whole you'll find they're relatively unanimous no matter where you go. Humans are as a species generally violent. We are predators, I don't care what you actually eat, which makes violence a normal part of our makeup. This is not something that's going to change just because of we take away or add any specific tool.
Ah Japan.... the land of the free....the place where everyone goes to be a free spirit.
BTW, even after the rant at the end, this entire post still proves that the guns are NOT the problem!
Since it's so easy to "shoot the legs" of a perp to disable him, it makes ya' wonder why the Australian police hurt anyone at all. I mean, just shoot the gun or knife out of his hands, right? And that three bullet maximum...how nice of criminals to never rove in groups larger than three. Also, maybe Australians don't have a femoral artery, so leg shots aren't that dangerous.
Man, the things some people believe because they saw it on a cartoon or a 1950s western.
It's amazing they're still a country.
For one, the criminals have much less to be afraid of, and shooting to injure is much riskier. You could miss, or the shot would trigger an adrenaline rush in the bad guy, or any number of bad things could happen.
You don't draw unless someone's life is on the line, and when that happens you are best off shooting to kill the bad guy. How hard is that to understand?
What would injuring a gunman's legs do amyways? Even if you didn't miss, he'd still be able to fight.
And one shot to the legs won't disable someone you actually need to shoot.
Assuming that one shot lands. Small moving targets are hard to hit, and legs are smaller and more mobile than the torso.
BTW, even after the rant at the end, this entire post still proves that the guns are NOT the problem!
Go away and stop trying to take everyone else's rights.
te an amry with your nation.
Man, the things some people believe because they saw it on a cartoon or a 1950s western.