"-=jd=-" wrote in message
8...
On Thu 18 Aug 2005 09:49:12p, "Honus"
wrote in message news:sUaNe.12405$Xw5.8566@trnddc02:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
8...

I think the people with guns were the least panicked involved as they
seemed, so far, to be *quite* efficient at their tasks.

Come on, jd...-seven- rounds to the head, from about as close as you can
get? At the very least, it's wasteful. IMO somebody had trouble with
their nerve.


**warning - don't read if you are easily squeamish**

I have a rule - if I'm not down to my last mag and I have to shoot
someone
in order to stop them from doing something: I'm going to start shooting at
the earliest opportunity, and I'm going to keep shooting until they quit
doing whatever it was that made me shoot them in the first place. Plus one
or two extra rounds.

Take the case of a hostage-taker holding a gun to a hostage's head. LA Co.
Sheriffs SWAT has found that when head-shot by a sniper (typically a
..308),
there's hopeful-news and bad-news... Bad-News: The hostage taker *will*
most likely still fire his gun at least once. Hopeful-News: The hostage
taker's gun most likely *will not* still be pointed at the hostage's head
when it goes off.

Believe it or not, I always wondered about that.

If I was one of the guys told to go stop that suicide bomber from
detonating, In order to be sure, I think I would fire at least four
rounds,
if not six, seven or ten. Figure *at least* three per second.

At least. I don't rapid fire, especially since it's frowned on in every gun
range I've ever been to, but I can double that estimate. Accuracy is a
different question. g

I don't think
I would have the luxury of shooting someone "just a little bit".

I agree.

Personal experience: At about 2 pm in upstate New York, a guy shoots
someone else, then himself (straight through over the ears), with a
charter
arms .44 bulldog. He's still breathing on his own. After transporting to
the nearest hospital, they take a CAT/MRI/something scan, and reveal the
biggest cigar-shaped wound channel you could fit through his brain. He
didn't die until after 7pm that evening. The guy he shot survived, but
still has a chunk of lead in him.

So, is seven rounds excessive? Well, it depends on how badly you want to
make sure he can't push a button, and you only get one chance. Either way,
you are rolling a mighty big pair of dice...

That's admittedly true. But I think four would have sufficed. And what about
the cop that grabbed the guy? I get the feeling (and that's all it is) that
he didn't expect his partner to be squeezing off rounds. I wonder how his
ears are doing right about now.

If you are talking about cops being armed in the first place, or a
policy of disabling a suicide bomber by speedily boring a large,
violent hole through their medulla-oblongata, then that's a different
(though related) issue.

Is there really anyone here who doesn't support that? (That's not
directed at jd...that's a serious query.)


If faced with a suicide bomber (in close proximity) that is about to
detonate, there is no other option if you want the best chance at stopping
him (and staying alive yourself). Anybody else is welcome to try and
negotiate, wrestle, bribe, whatever. Though I think that after you
identify
yourself, there may be a big BOOM before you could form the "k" sound in
"Let's Talk"...

I entirely agree. I'm just wondering if anyone else -doesn't-.