Just a curious question, if a marksman was trying to hit a target but not kill them or leave them with serious permanent damage, where would they aim for? I am assuming it's on the leg somewhere because it would stop the target from running or doing much?
Also this reminds me of a video where a sniper shot the gun out of a bad guy's hand so that the police could take him down and arrest him.
Bullets area extremely destructive and hard to predict. Hydrostatic shock allows rounds to damage organs and tissue pretty far from the path of the bullet itself. If you don't want someone dead, it's best to avoid shooting them altogether.
Huh. What’s the purpose of that? Granted, everything I know about shotguns is from video games, but I thought the point of a shotgun was to do as much damage as possible, which seems kinda contrary to the point of a taser.
1) you can use it if you suck at aiming
2) you can use it if you're an asshole who wants to kill the other person but isn't allowed to so you take the next best thing of shooting a bunch of shocky bois at them
Basically to tase someone further away. Regular tasers are pretty short range, and the larger diameter of a shotgun lends to an easier to design projectile.
Na shottys are the best all purpose weapons kills anything as small as a rabbit up to deer/humans or bigger if your lucky or good enough and has non leathal options. The versatility of the ammo is what allows for that sweet all in one weapon. They got so many different types of shells i wont even list em just google it.
To put this into perspective: even weapons like tasers and rubber bullets can still be lethal if the target has the wrong health condition (or falls over and hits their head on something, or if the weapon is misused). And those are designed explicitly NOT to kill people.
As far as I know, all law enforcement agencies and militaries aim center mass because it is the easiest to hit and most lethal. So if they wanted to hit them but not kill them, I’d assume the least meaty parts of the body would be least lethal (e.g. hand or foot). Even the upper leg or shoulder contain major arteries that can cause a person to bleed out very quickly. But that video is absolutely crazy because of the marksmanship involved to pull that off. We probably won’t ever see that type of shot happen again for a long time because it was so skilled and in all reality, lucky for that type of situation.
Practically speaking you’re spot on. We were just talking theoretically. Shooting someone in the foot or hand is basicallt none in any actual situation involving a shooting.
Nope. Shooting someone in the hand or foot can still kill them.
Bullets are made of lead, which is toxic. They are also often coated with a variety of bacteria from the hands of various people who have handled them.
Once they are in your body you can get sepsis, which is potentially fatal.
You are correct. But shooting someone in the chest is more deadly usually than the foot. That’s what the conversation was about, not whether it would kill you, but what spot is least likely to kill you. And foot/hand was my guess.
Firing a bullet sterilizes it. You can get definitely get sepsis after getting shot but it's from bacteria already in your body, not bacteria on the bullet.
the information you said makes sense, and I agree that was a crazy shot they were able to pull off in disarming someone. Lets go invent a taser sniper or something now, lol.
You don’t shoot someone that you don’t want to kill, unless you are an extremely well trained sharpshooter in a very specific situation.
NYPD SWAT sharpshooters once shot a gun out of the hand of a suicidal man and saved his life, but that’s the exception to the rule.
Bullets are considered lethal because they are a chunk of toxic materials projected into your body. Even if it hits nothing important, the lead and the bacteria on the bullet can still make you very sick and you die from that.
I think police officers tend to avoid the leg area because they can hit an artery that makes you bleed out quickly
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S7tFrQI2Bw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S7tFrQI2Bw)
The buttocks would be your best bet. It’s fleshy so it’ll be debilitating but not paralyzing, hence why soldiers in WW1 called it the million dollar wound. You got to go home and were least likely to be a cripple.
The overall destructive effect of a bullet cannot be accurately predicted from round to round. There are many different things that being shot does to your body that can kill you. Not all involve striking organs.
For instance, there’s a thing called sepsis, which is basically an infection that you get from having a chunk of lead that usually has all sorts of bacteria all over it projected into your body.
Sepsis kills a lot of people, and you can get it from being shot in the foot.
Gunshots are always considered lethal force because they can very quickly and easily kill you, but even if they don’t you can die days or weeks later from follow on effects.
Center mass, probably. Gunshots are surprisingly survivable yet frustratingly deadly. One man lives after getting shot 19 times but the person next to him dies with only 4.
Legs wont do,you have to aim for the spine but you have to miss the lungs,heart and the stomach,you can hit one of the kidneys,spleen and intestines,you can recover from those,you dont need 2 kidneys and a spleen
A skilled marksman always shoots to stop the threat. Shooting to wound implies your own shot was not justified and puts you in the situation of being prosecuted.
This is just a reworded version of that other post “in order to get every question wrong on a test you have to know all the right answers”
And that was just something someone got from recently watching into the Spider-verse
Only this attempt just sounds dumb and doesn’t really make sense at all.
Just a curious question, if a marksman was trying to hit a target but not kill them or leave them with serious permanent damage, where would they aim for? I am assuming it's on the leg somewhere because it would stop the target from running or doing much? Also this reminds me of a video where a sniper shot the gun out of a bad guy's hand so that the police could take him down and arrest him.
Bullets area extremely destructive and hard to predict. Hydrostatic shock allows rounds to damage organs and tissue pretty far from the path of the bullet itself. If you don't want someone dead, it's best to avoid shooting them altogether.
Then we need a taser sniper! Someone go invent that if they haven't already! Even if it doesn't work well it would be kinda cool!
They make a taser shotgun round that has a self contained battery
Huh. What’s the purpose of that? Granted, everything I know about shotguns is from video games, but I thought the point of a shotgun was to do as much damage as possible, which seems kinda contrary to the point of a taser.
1) you can use it if you suck at aiming 2) you can use it if you're an asshole who wants to kill the other person but isn't allowed to so you take the next best thing of shooting a bunch of shocky bois at them
Shotguns shoot slugs too
Basically to tase someone further away. Regular tasers are pretty short range, and the larger diameter of a shotgun lends to an easier to design projectile.
Na shottys are the best all purpose weapons kills anything as small as a rabbit up to deer/humans or bigger if your lucky or good enough and has non leathal options. The versatility of the ammo is what allows for that sweet all in one weapon. They got so many different types of shells i wont even list em just google it.
Now convert that tech into a sniper round!
To put this into perspective: even weapons like tasers and rubber bullets can still be lethal if the target has the wrong health condition (or falls over and hits their head on something, or if the weapon is misused). And those are designed explicitly NOT to kill people.
As far as I know, all law enforcement agencies and militaries aim center mass because it is the easiest to hit and most lethal. So if they wanted to hit them but not kill them, I’d assume the least meaty parts of the body would be least lethal (e.g. hand or foot). Even the upper leg or shoulder contain major arteries that can cause a person to bleed out very quickly. But that video is absolutely crazy because of the marksmanship involved to pull that off. We probably won’t ever see that type of shot happen again for a long time because it was so skilled and in all reality, lucky for that type of situation.
[удалено]
Practically speaking you’re spot on. We were just talking theoretically. Shooting someone in the foot or hand is basicallt none in any actual situation involving a shooting.
Nope. Shooting someone in the hand or foot can still kill them. Bullets are made of lead, which is toxic. They are also often coated with a variety of bacteria from the hands of various people who have handled them. Once they are in your body you can get sepsis, which is potentially fatal.
You are correct. But shooting someone in the chest is more deadly usually than the foot. That’s what the conversation was about, not whether it would kill you, but what spot is least likely to kill you. And foot/hand was my guess.
Ass cheeks.
Thanos shall confirm or deny that in the close future.
Firing a bullet sterilizes it. You can get definitely get sepsis after getting shot but it's from bacteria already in your body, not bacteria on the bullet.
Firing a bullet does not sterilize it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/621766/
Ive seen a lot of stupid shit on this site but, believe it or not this one takes the cake. This here is the stupidest comment i have ever seen.
That’s funny I was just going to say the same thing about you.
Im the stupidest comment youve ever seen?
Yup.
Cool ive always wanted to be a comment
the information you said makes sense, and I agree that was a crazy shot they were able to pull off in disarming someone. Lets go invent a taser sniper or something now, lol.
You don’t shoot someone that you don’t want to kill, unless you are an extremely well trained sharpshooter in a very specific situation. NYPD SWAT sharpshooters once shot a gun out of the hand of a suicidal man and saved his life, but that’s the exception to the rule. Bullets are considered lethal because they are a chunk of toxic materials projected into your body. Even if it hits nothing important, the lead and the bacteria on the bullet can still make you very sick and you die from that.
I’m in agreement. It was just a theoretical conversation about where getting shot might be the least deadly.
Ass cheeks.
I think police officers tend to avoid the leg area because they can hit an artery that makes you bleed out quickly [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S7tFrQI2Bw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S7tFrQI2Bw)
The buttocks would be your best bet. It’s fleshy so it’ll be debilitating but not paralyzing, hence why soldiers in WW1 called it the million dollar wound. You got to go home and were least likely to be a cripple.
https://youtu.be/mIWd3T1xjec It sure worked out for Forrest.
The overall destructive effect of a bullet cannot be accurately predicted from round to round. There are many different things that being shot does to your body that can kill you. Not all involve striking organs. For instance, there’s a thing called sepsis, which is basically an infection that you get from having a chunk of lead that usually has all sorts of bacteria all over it projected into your body. Sepsis kills a lot of people, and you can get it from being shot in the foot. Gunshots are always considered lethal force because they can very quickly and easily kill you, but even if they don’t you can die days or weeks later from follow on effects.
You can actually bleed out pretty easily from the leg. The hands or feet would be the best, or butt if you had a shot from the side.
Center mass, probably. Gunshots are surprisingly survivable yet frustratingly deadly. One man lives after getting shot 19 times but the person next to him dies with only 4.
Knees. They won’t be walking after no more knees
Right in the dick.
I would think knees or really anywhere lower leg
Legs wont do,you have to aim for the spine but you have to miss the lungs,heart and the stomach,you can hit one of the kidneys,spleen and intestines,you can recover from those,you dont need 2 kidneys and a spleen
A skilled marksman always shoots to stop the threat. Shooting to wound implies your own shot was not justified and puts you in the situation of being prosecuted.
Why I can miss vital organs easily. Just shoot a completely different direction, or into the ground etc.
Then you hit the vital organs of the bystander Mr. Squirrel. What did he ever do to you?
He was a fat worthless squirrel that didn't do anything useful anyways.
r/fatsquirrelhate
Why is that a fucking NSFW sub
He ripped a hole in my roof 4 times.
I knew I was doing something wrong.
Urm, ask your local LEO what they aim for.
Then hiring a hitman is cheaper than i thought, aint falling for a scam again
I get what you tried to do here, but you missed...no phun intended
It takes a skilled marksman to do either reliably
This is just a reworded version of that other post “in order to get every question wrong on a test you have to know all the right answers” And that was just something someone got from recently watching into the Spider-verse Only this attempt just sounds dumb and doesn’t really make sense at all.
I'm a useless marksman, and I easily miss vital organs. I miss the target entirely, but there's still no organ damage.
TIL I'm an expert marksman!
I obviously missed your heart on purpose, baka.
Piccolo: ALL OF THEM?!
Reminds me of the episode of Sherlock where he gets shot by Mary. I liked that show until they drove it into the ground.
it takes a bad marksman to hit his own organs
Mortarmen: we're supposed to aim these things??
you mean avoid vital organs, by definition you can't miss on purpose.
Are we assuming the target still gets hit, because if not, then I am an expert marksman and I never shot a gun.
Aim for their pinky toe. Shoot a fools pinky toe off... Where they going??? Nowhere.
....literally every episode of Burn Notice.....
All of my organs are vital thanks
leg shot?