Posted on 06/17/2016 11:43:38 AM PDT by marktwain
When I go to the range, my intention is to place every round in the Bulls-eye; thus where the lead actually goes really doesn’t matter - right?
As we keep saying:
SHOT PLACEMENT MATTERS
These numbers are bogus. With exploding rounds from a gun that feels like a bazooka and sounds like a cannon, the lethality has to be near 100%. /s
“When I go to the range, my intention is to place every round in the Bulls-eye; thus where the lead actually goes really doesn’t matter - right?”
I do not understand your point. Please elaborate.
bump
What a mindless study!
Kuntzman never shot a Mosin-Nagant M-38 at dusk. It is a cannon.
Are you saying it is obvious or irrelevant? I cannot tell from your post.
The rifle my father gave me for deer hunting at 14 was an Enfield jungle carbine. I wish I still had it so I could take the silly nitwit author you reference shooting.
I shot an NRA high power match with it once as a lark. I was told not to ever bring that rifle back. That is how bad it was.
Homicide/Assault is most likely a single shooter firing a few shots. Legal intervention can be four LEO emptying five 17 round mags. So yes, legal intervention is more lethal, for sure.
How convenient of them to label “legal intervention” as only encompassing law enforcement. The numerous gun owners who have helped avert a crisis are conveniently ignored in this “study”.
This goes to the whole "hate crime" thought process, which I find indefenceible. I do not care what the perp was thinking, or his "state of mind". I care about "what he did", and perhaps "why he did it" only if it is parmount to the case.
For example, I shot Mr. Smith in the head, because he was in my home, uninvited, at 4am after having forced open my patio door. Whether I was mad, scared, angry, happy, sad, depressed, jealous or frustrated about having to replace my patio door has no bearing at all. Mr. Smith was invading my home. If I am white and Mr. Smith is black, and someone alledges I don't like blacks - so what? Mr. Smith still broke into my home at 4am.
If Mr. Jones goes on a shooting spree and fires off 500 rounds at a crowd of people, yet only wings 1 person, I see this as a charge of attempted murder for everyone one in that building. The fact that he was a bad shot means nothing. For all we knew, he may have wanted to hit and kill with each round; but due to being a poor marksman, he missed. That does not detract from the criminal act; nor should the perceived "state of mind" nor "intent of the criminal".
There is no way you can prove that you know what I am thinking as I write this response. I could be admiring my truck, thinking of my new AR-15, admiring the shape of a girl next door, or preparing to kick my cat (assuming I had a cat that needed kicking, and that I would do such a think to my cat in any case). My point is that no one can read minds, let alone prove what someone else was thinking.
“There is no way you can prove that you know what I am thinking as I write this response.”
Certainly true.
However, the left treats homicide as though it were simply a random natural event, with no one really responsible. It “just happened”. The gun “went off”.
In reality the intent of the shooter makes an enormous difference.
Generally, I think it's safe to assume that if a person goes into an establishment, and fires off muliple rounds at people, the intent was to kill as many peoplel as he had rounds. Whether he hit everyone or not, really is more of his testament of his skill, not his intent. He should be charged and treated for his actions, because you cannot prove his intent.
By firing at people, he is charged with 'x' charges of Attempted Murder. If the victims die, then it's Murder. If his "intent" was to simply scare and intimidate, I do not care. It's his actions that matter. I can prove actions, I cannot prove intent.
“When I go to the range, my intention is to place every round in the Bulls-eye; thus where the lead actually goes really doesn’t matter - right?”
I do not understand your point. Please elaborate.
I believe what Hodar was inferring is that shot placement is king.
This study is a classic correlation does not prove causation study.
"Legal intervention" shootings are probably more fatal because they are being performed by people who are trained to shoot for center of mass, and to continue to shoot until the threat ends. They also practice several times a year or more to refine these skills.
Most of the intentional (assault) shootings are most likely performed by untrained individuals who rarely if ever practice, so shots are more likely to be in non-lethal areas such as arms and legs.
Of course, shot placement depends a great deal on intention. Skill is only part of the equation.
A person who does not intend to kill is unlikely to aim for the center of mass.
Do you really think differences in intention produce random results?
And that was just a .223 round. Imagine shooting a .50 BMG. You could put the sun out with a single shot.
Not sure I understand the question. It is my hypothesis that differences in intention are carried out by people with different skill sets, and it is the differences in skill sets that result in different lethal results.
For example, few law enforcement officers would be counted in the intentional assault category, and few gang bangers would be counted in the legal intervention category.
But I will take exception to the notion that somebody is able to "shoot to wound" under any stressful incident.
Many times when there is a shooting of a civilian by the police, there are always questions, posed by uninformed individuals, of why the police didn't just shoot the gun out of the perp's hand. Or why they didn't just shoot them in the leg.
No, if you deem the situation dire enough to require you to shoot, you aim for center of mass.
I suppose if you are a fan of the movie Pulp Fiction, then there does leave open the possibility that the shooter intentionally shot out the kneecap of a delinquent gambler, thereby chalking one up for intentional assault that was also intentionally not lethal.
I think that is more Hollywood than Hood.
“I suppose if you are a fan of the movie Pulp Fiction”
I have never seen it. I think we are talking past each other. There are numerous levels of intention. If you are in a fight for your life, the motivation tends to be high; still, it matters if your intention is to escape, to take a suspect into custody, to protect others, and/or to kill.
An intention to kill with high motivation is more likely to result in deaths than an intention to scare off an intruder or to scare off rival gang members. A high motivation to kill will result in shooting the wounded, as happened with the recent Orlando mass killing.
It seems obvious to me that intention is very important in what percentage of shootings result in woundings instead of killings. I believe it is also true for shots that miss; but that is much harder to document.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.