From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David Veal)
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 23:08:07 GMT

In article <cthong.714250940@sfu.ca>
cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:

>
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>In article <cthong.713584651@sfu.ca> cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) rites:
>
>>>also as all guns fire some form of
>>>projectile, i direct your attention to the section on some ammo adverts
>>>that publicise wound statistics and (Hollow points and their increasing
>>>popularity is another point-) the very fact that dummy targets (discounting
>>>a canadian bull for grouping) all have desired strike zones located around
>>>definitely sure kill places on the body....
>
>>Wrong.  Hollowpoints are less lethal than FMJ when used to "stop".
>>The targets designated are effective "stop zones", which is somewhat
>>important since the goal of self-defense is to stop the attacker.
>
>>>come on, nobody makes weapons
>>>to wing or even to take out a leg anymore do they?
>
>>How is a gun designed to shoot someone in the leg different than
>>one designed to shoot them somewhere else?
>
>>Shooting someone in the arm/leg is a lousy way to stop them, unless
>>you're using something that pretty much guarantees amputation, which
>>is way beyond "modern" small arms.  Such amputation is likely to
>>result in eventual death, more so than less extreme measures like
>>shooting them in a "stop zone" with a practical gun.
>
>>While shooting someone in the arm/leg is a lousy way to stop them,
>>they're still at some risk of death.  Anti-self-defense folk sure
>>are blood thirsty.  They want to kill attackers, they just don't
>>want to stop them.
> let me get this straight - stop them but don't kill them.

     Shoot to stop.  Whether you kill them or not is incidental to
whether you stop the attack.  If they survive, all well and good.  If
they don't that's too bad.  The point is to stop the attack.

>don't shoot them in the arms or the legs.

     Shooting someone in the arms or legs is far more unlikely to stop
than shooting for the center of the body, not to mention that hitting
the arms and legs, as opposed to the center of the body, in that sort
of situation may well be impossible.  It is *difficult* to hit someone's
arms or legs, much more difficult than aiming for the torso, which is
easier to hit.

>boy . you sure must be a REAL good shot if you can think of AND hit
>another 'disabling' area of the body eh?

     The point is not to disable or preserve the life of the attacker,
only to stop the attack.  The easiest part of the body, and the area which
is most likely to stop the attacker, is the torso.  Shooting for the arms
or legs is dangerous, because you are likely to miss, and even if you
don't miss you are less likely to stop the attack than if you had aimed
for the torso.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals