- SpartanMk18
- |
- Fabled Legendary Member
The Spartan Special Ops - Now with more LOLgasms!
Posted by: EnragedElite67
"The problem with quotes on the internet is 95% are made up." - Socrates
Posted by: Cheeto666
Okay, I'll yield that to you. Always shoot to kill, but "shooting to kill", even with non-lethal rounds, would still have the effect of neutralizing a target.
Keep in mind, that even if you shoot someone with a lethal round, it's not guaranteed that it will kill them, or even slow them down.
In a firefight, nothing is certain until the other guy stops firing and you know he's not going to start firing again, whether he be dead or unconscious.
Posted by: SpartanMk18
Posted by: aTALLmidget
Posted by: Cheeto666
Should you aim to kill? Of course not,
This is wrong. If you are in a scenario where you must employ force, you shoot to kill, period.
Firearms are considered lethal force, and to use them against someone in any less capacity can land you in trouble.
You do not shoot to wound
you do not shoot to scare
you shoot to kill, period.
Which is the point. You apply force till the threat is neutralized.
Vital organs being destroyed have a nasty habit of stopping someone in their tracks.
I would not rely on rubber rounds to neutralize a threat. To many variables, like adrenalin, body mass, and other drugs like say, pcp.
A ruptured heart, a shattered spine, a punctured lung all will stop an aggressor no matter what they are on.