Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If there's one thing that gets my goat about America, its the assumption that the UK = England! But you guys already know that and are trying to wind me up, ain't that so?

When Matty is in the UK, do you think he worries about getting mugged? I doubt it?

Anyway, it's not the muggers you worry about in the UK, it's the TV licence guy!!

Anyway, drop in sometime for a holiday, it's not that bad

.

That sounds like Germany.

"HEY, I CAN HEAR YOU IN THERE!!!! I CAN HEAR TV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Hey, if you guys keep trying to call me a Yank, I can call all of you Englishmen.

Coffee!!!! That's enough to get you deported!! This is the land of Tea. Are you familiar with the Boston Tea party and London's thinking behind it

@whembley, yeah it's Britain's secret shame - you have to give the government money if you own a television set :(
I know what you're thinking, it would NEVER happen in the USA, and you're right to think that, but here in the UK we're more progressive when it comes to taxation

Back OT Guns are bad and that's my final word


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slightly OT, and to save me a wikipedia search, where does the term Yank/Yankee come from? It's something I've always wondered, but couldn't be bothered to find out

Back OT Guns are bad, support your sherriff

No coffee no visit from me.

Guess I go to Ireland for the Guiness though.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Slightly OT, and to save me a wikipedia search, where does the term Yank/Yankee come from? It's something I've always wondered, but couldn't be bothered to find out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee#Early_usage

Guiness is probably the most overated stuff on God's earth.

Melissia, I was hoping for an authentic - straight-from-the horse's mouth reply. But Thanks anyway.
Back OT Guns are bad (I'm rolling out the cliches so I don't get done for spamming )

Anyway, fair play to any citizen that shoots down a crook, and I'm off to the pub for a drink or two hundred. Have a good weekend.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Guiness is probably the most overated stuff on God's earth.

No, that would be any American lager.

Melissia wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Hollywood does glamorize an assualt rifle at times

If you want to look cool, take this:

Since when did a giant sandwich board saying "I am overcompensating" look cool? Because that's what Colt Pythons are, outside of bear country.


Also: The guy was still fighting the officer with four .45 slugs in his torso, in addition to what I assume would be the officer's either 9mm parabellum or else .40? If someone is still attacking with that much jacketed lead in them, then I would say that the officer was definitely in danger and this is a clean shooting.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Also: The guy was still fighting the officer with four .45 slugs in his torso, in addition to what I assume would be the officer's either 9mm parabellum or else .40? If someone is still attacking with that much jacketed lead in them, then I would say that the officer was definitely in danger and this is a clean shooting.

Instant one-shot stops are a myth, outside of hitting the CNS.

Or heart.

I'm well aware that Hollywood's handgun myths are just that. Notwithstanding, my point is that was still a lot of force transfer into the torso. I'd normally assume something like PCP to be a factor when we're talking about four .45 hits, if the attacker wasn't upwards of 400 lbs. Hence, the "definitely in danger" part.


EDIT: speling is gud

The guy was still fighting the officer with four .45 slugs in his torso,

I agree with you that this was a good shoot, but all I can say to the above is that handguns are terrible, as firearms go. Pretty much any time you are shooting one at something that doesn't feel like laying down and dying you are going to wind up shooting more than once (Unless you are really awesome at CNS hits.)

There is a reason law enforcement is trained to fire center mass, you can hit a lot of places in the torso and not cause a fatal wound.

To call a handgun a terrible weapon is a bit much, a good center mass shot with a JHP .357 will stop just about anyone, a .45 has stronger ballistics and carries 400-650 ft lbds of energy depending on range, there's nothing terrible about that, its all on where the bullet hits I.e. soft or hard tissue.

I will say that's low compared to a rifle, but in close quarters rifles are at a distinct disadvantage.

One other thing to consider, if the guys adrenalin was way up he may not have known he was shot, to him it may have felt like someone punching him in the back.

That's my 2 cents, but I am glad the guy stepped in to help the officer, one bad guy dead and one less national news story about a police officer getting killed.

 Lordhat wrote:
A concealed carry permit holder in Louisiana saved a police officer's life...

...Baton Rouge Police Chief Jeff LeDuff stopped short of crediting Stevens with saving the officer's life.

Mis-titled thread.

I hope the shooter gets proper counselling in addition to his justly deserved laurels.

 SOFDC wrote:

The guy was still fighting the officer with four .45 slugs in his torso,

I agree with you that this was a good shoot, but all I can say to the above is that handguns are terrible, as firearms go. Pretty much any time you are shooting one at something that doesn't feel like laying down and dying you are going to wind up shooting more than once (Unless you are really awesome at CNS hits.)

A .45 is a big round. There's a reason its often called a "manstopper"

9mm are what baddies shrug off with nary a blink, a .45 will normally put someone down for good. Even taking drugs or something into account.

Wonder how tight his shot group was

Considering he hit with all of his shots, my guess is pretty good.

I think the real question is how close was he?

IronWarLeg wrote:There is a reason law enforcement is trained to fire center mass, you can hit a lot of places in the torso and not cause a fatal wound.

That's not why they're trained to fire for center mass. They're trained to do that because it's the most forgiving target for their aim.

When a law enforcement officer opens fire, they are intending to use lethal force. No police officer will ever intentionally shoot to wound, and they do not carry firearms that are designed to do so, either.

"less lethal" refers to tasers and bean bag guns; not .40 Beretta 96A1


EDIT: At least, that's what cops in Canada use.

 azazel the cat wrote:

IronWarLeg wrote:There is a reason law enforcement is trained to fire center mass, you can hit a lot of places in the torso and not cause a fatal wound.

That's not why they're trained to fire for center mass. They're trained to do that because it's the most forgiving target for their aim.

When a law enforcement officer opens fire, they are intending to use lethal force. No police officer will ever intentionally shoot to wound, and they do not carry firearms that are designed to do so, either.

"less lethal" refers to tasers and bean bag guns; not .40 Beretta 96A1


EDIT: At least, that's what cops in Canada use.

sounds about right...

Never heard of officers (or military) shooting to "wound".

whembly wrote:
sounds about right...

Never heard of officers (or military) shooting to "wound".

Oddly enough, for I dunno how long (perhaps still?) that's exactly the reason the military used full metal jacket rounds -to wound rather than kill.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:
sounds about right...

Never heard of officers (or military) shooting to "wound".

Oddly enough, for I dunno how long (perhaps still?) that's exactly the reason the military used full metal jacket rounds -to wound rather than kill.

??? huh... didn't know that.

Thats just seems... weird coming from the military. (full metal jackets are less lethal?)

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:
sounds about right...

Never heard of officers (or military) shooting to "wound".

Oddly enough, for I dunno how long (perhaps still?) that's exactly the reason the military used full metal jacket rounds -to wound rather than kill.

Not 100%, but I believe it's not because they are less lethal, but because FMJ ball ammo is far less likely to mis-feed than semi-jacketed anything.

 whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:
sounds about right...

Never heard of officers (or military) shooting to "wound".

Oddly enough, for I dunno how long (perhaps still?) that's exactly the reason the military used full metal jacket rounds -to wound rather than kill.

??? huh... didn't know that.

Thats just seems... weird coming from the military. (full metal jackets are less lethal?)

I doubt that's the only reason, but it does make sense. If a guy gets wounded, it has the potential to be more of a disruption than just killing him, because it could possibly take several of his companions out of the fight in order to take care of him.

Hordini wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:
sounds about right...

Never heard of officers (or military) shooting to "wound".

Oddly enough, for I dunno how long (perhaps still?) that's exactly the reason the military used full metal jacket rounds -to wound rather than kill.

??? huh... didn't know that.

Thats just seems... weird coming from the military. (full metal jackets are less lethal?)

I doubt that's the only reason, but it does make sense. If a guy gets wounded, it has the potential to be more of a disruption than just killing him, because it could possibly take several of his companions out of the fight in order to take care of him.

You'd think this would make the most sense, right? But historically, it's really just a "gentlemen in warfare" sorta deal. I'm not sure if the military still uses FMJ rounds or not, but if they still do I'm wouldn't be surprised if it's more of a cost issue than tradition.

And yes, full metal jackets are less lethal than hollow-point rounds, as the HPs just explode and transfer more energy into the target. FMJs will penetrate deeper, often resulting in a through-and-through wound wherein a considerably amount of energy carries through the target, rather than being completely transferred into it.

FMJ's are less lethal because they're less likely to break up inside of the body. More likely to punch through the target causing a wound, and easier for surgeons to patch you up. A soldier hit with an AR round is going to drop most likely, and be taken out of the fight. It's a Geneva Convention requirement. We like war to be humane, you see?

Now for law enforcement purposes they use differant rounds for multiple reason. As has been mentioned, the lethality factor, they will shoot only if they intend to kill. If they're in a situation they need to use the firearm, then they need to ensure that the job gets done. Secondly, a round that shatters in the body is much less likely to exit the body, or exit the body with as much force as a round with an FMJ, making collateraly damage a smaller concern.

 whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:
sounds about right...

Never heard of officers (or military) shooting to "wound".

Oddly enough, for I dunno how long (perhaps still?) that's exactly the reason the military used full metal jacket rounds -to wound rather than kill.

??? huh... didn't know that.

Thats just seems... weird coming from the military. (full metal jackets are less lethal?)

My military buddies have said the same thing. A guy that can't shoot back is a guy that can't shoot back, but a wounded guy takes up a lot of resources. Medics on the field, recovery from the field, hospitals, etc. Dead guys are easy to take care of, wounded soldiers are a logistical nightmare. They don't shoot to wound, but a wounded guy has benefits.

Palindrome wrote:

 kronk wrote:


Reading fail on your part, I'm afraid.

Fact 1: Only 1 shot at his head. The others were to his torso.
Fact 2: The officer called for help.
Fact 3: The officer had already shot the man once, being in fear for his own life.
Fact 4: The man had the officer down on the ground. He was either bigger, stronger, or otherwise had an advantage over the officer.

Assumption 1: One could presume that they were scuffling over the officer's gun or he was choking the officer.

But it's OK. You can turn this into another anti-gun thread if you want.

Only a slight reading comprehension fail I'm afraid. Facts 2-4 don't automatically mean that lethal force was required and fact 1 just means that the guy probably wasn't that good a shot.

Well the purpose of this thread is abundantly clear, I may as well provide at least a small counter balance.

Fact 1 in fact means he was an EXCELLENT shot. Four shots center of mass and one in the head? That's fantastic shooting by anyone's standards and follows proper technique to aim for body shots. As they're much more likely to hit. Per Marine Corps combat shooting this would be a controlled pair (two well aimed shots to the torso) followed by a failure drill. (Two well aimed shots to the torso and a shot to the head)

Edit: Yes the military pretty much exclusively uses FMJ ammunition, usually with a ballisitic tip. This is per the Geneva conventions and the US Law of Land Warfare/Law of Armed Conflict (which says the same gak as the former essentially). It boils down to Hollow Points being considered cruel or something along those lines. Still kills things well enough so *shrug*

There's also no "shoot to wound" doctrine on the books any where in the world to my knowledge.

 azazel the cat wrote:

IronWarLeg wrote:There is a reason law enforcement is trained to fire center mass, you can hit a lot of places in the torso and not cause a fatal wound.

That's not why they're trained to fire for center mass. They're trained to do that because it's the most forgiving target for their aim.

When a law enforcement officer opens fire, they are intending to use lethal force. No police officer will ever intentionally shoot to wound, and they do not carry firearms that are designed to do so, either.

"less lethal" refers to tasers and bean bag guns; not .40 Beretta 96A1


EDIT: At least, that's what cops in Canada use.

That was my point exactly, officers are trained to shoot center mass in addition to it being the largest target available on the body, its lethal. I think we would be arguing the same point

~Iron


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Hordini wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:
sounds about right...

Never heard of officers (or military) shooting to "wound".

Oddly enough, for I dunno how long (perhaps still?) that's exactly the reason the military used full metal jacket rounds -to wound rather than kill.

??? huh... didn't know that.

Thats just seems... weird coming from the military. (full metal jackets are less lethal?)

I doubt that's the only reason, but it does make sense. If a guy gets wounded, it has the potential to be more of a disruption than just killing him, because it could possibly take several of his companions out of the fight in order to take care of him.

You'd think this would make the most sense, right? But historically, it's really just a "gentlemen in warfare" sorta deal. I'm not sure if the military still uses FMJ rounds or not, but if they still do I'm wouldn't be surprised if it's more of a cost issue than tradition.

And yes, full metal jackets are less lethal than hollow-point rounds, as the HPs just explode and transfer more energy into the target. FMJs will penetrate deeper, often resulting in a through-and-through wound wherein a considerably amount of energy carries through the target, rather than being completely transferred into it.

This is also true, military has to use FMJ and it is in direct relation to the amount of damage a JHP does to your target. And yes the military still uses FMJ, its part of the Hague Convention of 1899, bullets that easily expand or flatten in the body. Its most often thought to be part of the Geneva Convention, but that is wrong. On a side note we didnt sign anything in the Hague convention, we just abide by it anyway.

source:http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f22/full-metal-jacket-bullets-hague-conference-5865/

Oh and a lot of different departments down here use different side arms, but the majority that I have seen use Glock 9mm, while some still use the Baretta M9 (like the military), and even others still have revolvers (these are mostly your small town forces, pretty much all inner city police have switched over to a semi auto.)

Most police departments now carry pistols in .40S&W

Cause the 9mm round is gak.

 whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:
sounds about right...

Never heard of officers (or military) shooting to "wound".

Oddly enough, for I dunno how long (perhaps still?) that's exactly the reason the military used full metal jacket rounds -to wound rather than kill.

??? huh... didn't know that.

Thats just seems... weird coming from the military. (full metal jackets are less lethal?)

well ...there was also a convention we may have signed to agreeing not to use dum dum rounds. It is doctrinally accepted that shooting to wound may be preferable because of the psychological impact of a screaming casualty versus the silent dead, added to the logistical implications of having to treat, transport, and treat again a casualty. Soldiers shoot to kill in most cases and wounding is a happy accident.
Cops shoot for the torso because it's a large target to make misses less frequent. There's also hydrostatic shock from the bullet passing through the cavity and a denser area to stop the boolit. That's also why they don't aim for gut shots, too squishy.

A wounded combatant takes at least two buddies to remove from the field.