Comment hidden by user downvote Click to expand
What's the point in having guns if you're not going to use them?
-
Select language
What's the point in having guns if you're not going to use them?
A firearm, by definition, is lethal force. I sincerely doubt the officer was aiming for his leg. Just a lucky shot for the crazy guy.
US cops seem to enjoy going cowboy, when they have the opportunity to use their firearms. We regularly hear of groups of cops unleashing firestorms on armed or dangerous criminals - mostly missing the criminal and hitting the gawkers in the background.
If he really was aiming at the leg of a moving target - this guy is a seriously well-trained expert marksman.
To understand the difficulty - try shooting a fixed target with rubber bands - once you become proficient - then try hitting flying gnats with those same rubber bands, and you'll quickly understand the gist of the difference.
if a target is moving towards you, it is pretty easy to hit, even with a handgun. hunters can shoot game that is moving across their field of fire. you have to be a better shot, but not superman, and not from a possible range of 5-10m. shooting gnats with a rubber band is not a good comparison. Shooting at rc cars with a bb gun from 3-5m with the car not trying to make evasive manouvers would be a better comparison. you dont have to be a marksman to hit a man sized target from a few meteres away with a handgun. and shooting at the legs is an option, not crap shooting, from that range.
@ nap. there are cops who in their whole career never draw their guns. your arguement is akin to saying, 'we got guns, lets go shoot someone', duh.
@dazzer
yep - gnats definitely difficult to hit - but I couldn't think of something innocuous that most people wouldn't mind missing, that would still be somewhat constructive in nature...so it was gnats...
On that note - it was one shot - probably a double-action trigger pull - tough shot especially with the typically huge gawker crowds surrounding the situation.
I'm guessing this was a somewhat pre-approved response.
In the USA - nobody is trained to do "leg or arm or hand" shots - it's always center of mass (body). If you actually manage a wing shot - well just dumb luck for the perpetrator and maybe back to the firing range for the shooter, because he/she missed the body mass.
Would be good if they had had stun guns or maybe 'rubber bullets', yeah.
can't believe people are criticising the police for shooting and an angry man with an axe in the leg. It takes some balls to approach an angry guy with an axe and physically subdue him, even if you have a shield or a stick. I don't blame the officer for using a sidearm in the correct way.
They are the internet heros who without any experience, any idea of the situation, would have done things differently.
They would have assessed the situation, asked him nicely to put the axe down, then as he lunges towards them they would somersault from harm's way, draw their pistol in mid air and shoot him in the leg, missing all major arteries as they are expert marksmen in their spare time. Then they would blow the smoke from the gun, holster it and sow up the injured with their own shoelaces.
No need for police when we have people like the above patrolling the streets.
The axe lunatic, he's the real victim here.
I don't pretend to know all about how to subdue mentally ill people who are swinging axes, nor do I pretend to know the particulars of the situation described that led to the choice of shooting the guy in the leg, but it seems to me that the fact that the cops did it without killing anybody is a good thing.
you don need to kill every threat en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Leytonstone_tube_station_attack.
This thread is locked.