You might want to reread my post, because it doesn’t say what you seem to think it does.I was in pre and post 9/11 and I never heard such gibberish. See my previous post. View attachment 203206
You might want to reread my post, because it doesn’t say what you seem to think it does.I was in pre and post 9/11 and I never heard such gibberish. See my previous post. View attachment 203206
I'm pretty sure it does. As I said, I was pre and post 9/11 and our training never involved anything other than shooting center mass and depending on the training, there would be one to the head. You cite Carr and Stumpf who are both SEALs and SOF training (I'm not a Trident or Navy guy, I wore a different hat) and they most definitely would train 'two to the chest and one to the head'...I've heard it about a million times from SEALs. I've never heard anything different between 1988 and 2013.You might want to reread my post, because it doesn’t say what you seem to think it does.
Again, my post does not say what you seem to think it says.I'm pretty sure it does. As I said, I was pre and post 9/11 and our training never involved anything other than shooting center mass and depending on the training, there would be one to the head. You cite Carr and Stumpf who are both SEALs and SOF training (I'm not a Trident or Navy guy, I wore a different hat) and they most definitely would train 'two to the chest and one to the head'...I've heard it about a million times from SEALs. I've never heard anything different between 1988 and 2013.
The video does have a little truth in it. I enlisted in the AF in 1975. When we went through weapons qualifications, our instructors said our purpose was not to kill, but to disable the enemy.
Their stated reasoning was that if you killed an enemy combatant the rest of that group would see their friend was dead and may be motivated to fight harder. If they were only wounded, several of his friends would have to stop fighting to remove him from the area to safety to get medical help, thus taking them out of the battle. Two to four troops out of the fight to help one even temporarily could give your side the opportunity to win. Then, it would take even more troops to take care of them after that which could result in overwhelming logistic and supply problems for the rear areas who would then have difficulty providing support and resupply to the forward areas.
My feelings were that if someone was shooting at me, they intended to kill me. Period! I wasn’t about to take the chance they’d succeed. Years later during qualifications, we were told to shoot center of mass and the subject of wounding was never mentioned again.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they had trained shoot to sound at some point. Just listen to Jack Carr, Andy Stumpf, or any number of other SOF guys who were in prior to 9/11; they often talk about how different the pre- and post-9/11 military are just because wartime experience teaches you a lot of lessons that you can’t learn any other way.
That said, every instructor I’ve ever heard who actually knows whereof they speak has said that you always aim center of mass because arms and legs are very hard to hit even on stationary targets, plus legs have major arteries that can cause you to bleed out in minutes if they’re hit. The only people who believe that claptrap about shooting arms and legs are people who got their firearms education from Hollyweird, and you know how accurate they are...
Because if you shoot the guns out of their hands they don't get wounded. Duh.Why not just shoot the guns out of their hands?
Wyatt Earp and others did that all the time. I’ve seen it on TV!
These modern boys need to go back to 6 shooters.
Man, if I had a dime for every time I saw the Lone Ranger do that. Then he just beat them up.Because if you shoot the guns out of their hands they don't get wounded. Duh.
Enter your email address to join: