[Mars]

The general idea is that someone will usually continue to fire even if they're injured, and the only sure way to stop them is by killing them as quickly as possible.

(i.e. the same reason .22 caliber pistols aren't all that effective)

Why they don't just buy a .357 is beyond me.

[Flipside]

Understandable to a degree, but if trained law-enforcement officers thought like that, there'd be an outcry, they only use deadly force if there's no other choice, and are investigated thoroughly when they need to do so. It seems odd that the people have more freedom when handling a gun than the law do.

[MP-Ryan]

The general idea is that someone will usually continue to fire even if they're injured, and the only sure way to stop them is by killing them as quickly as possible.

(i.e. the same reason .22 caliber pistols aren't all that effective)

Why they don't just buy a .357 is beyond me.

Ever fired a .357?

If you're panicking over an intruder in your home in the middle of the night and grabbing a firearm to respond with, you should grab one you're capable of picking up, aiming, firing, and not missing with despite your mental state.  Or at least repeatedly firing in the same general direction.

Sawed-off shotguns, 9mm pistols, .22 pistols, and .40 pistols all roughly fit this category.  Point and squeeze the trigger.  With most untrained people, your first shot with a .357 or anything larger will be over the subject's head, and the next 5 (if you make it that far) will be punching drainage holes in your roof.  A shotgun or low calibre pistol in the best choice for anyone but those who are trained in and regularly practice the use of firearms.

Understandable to a degree, but if trained law-enforcement officers thought like that, there'd be an outcry, they only use deadly force if there's no other choice, and are investigated thoroughly when they need to do so. It seems odd that the people have more freedom when handling a gun than the law do.

People are assumed to be untrained.  Not to mention, people are only allowed to use force required to stop someone in the defense of life.  Someone breaks into your home without a weapon and you shoot them to stop them, fine.  Someone breaks into your home unarmed, you shoot them to stop them and they aren't mortally wounded but you then walk over and fire more shots into them and you'll find yourself up on criminal charges.

[Flipside]

Problem is, I think for some people, this just means 'get a gun that does the job with the first shot'.

[BloodEagle]

Not to mention, people are only allowed to use force required to stop someone in the defense of life.  Someone breaks into your home without a weapon and you shoot them to stop them, fine.

What if they don't stop?

[Kosh]

1. There isn't always a way to drive off. You could be in a traffic jam, you could be blocked off and limited to reverse (which isn't the fastest gear, or the easiest one to drive safely at full throttle), you could have your car turned off by a crash sensor cutting the fuel to the engine if you collide with the agressor's car, and there's a few more such situations where you have to face the guy

And if you try reaching for a gun, what is to stop him from pulling is out and blowing your head off.

[DeepSpace9er]

Understandable to a degree, but if trained law-enforcement officers thought like that, there'd be an outcry, they only use deadly force if there's no other choice, and are investigated thoroughly when they need to do so. It seems odd that the people have more freedom when handling a gun than the law do.

A guy alive can still harm you. If you fear your life is in danger, really the only circumstance you can discharge a firearm towards somebody in most states, you shoot to kill.. always. You dont shoot to wound, or shoot to incapacitate. Your life is in danger, that is why you are shooting at him to end the threat.

[Mars]

Law enforcement officers DO think like that. If they're shooting at you, they want you dead. Typically people shot by police have multiple gunshot wounds.

[WMCoolmon]

Problem is, I think for some people, this just means 'get a gun that does the job with the first shot'.

The unpredictability is part of the deterrence. You want to go into somebody's house and steal stuff? There's an unknown possibility that you might be facing someone with a gun whose instant assumption is that you're trying to steal stuff and kill them. So at that point your life is pretty much forfeit and at their mercy. And there's no reason for them to trust you if you say that you aren't going to injure them - you've already broken their trust by coming into their house.

But let's say the robber surrenders and the homeowner blows their head off anyway. The robber is dead and nothing's going to change that. Even if his death was despicably immoral and utterly unjustified, and the homeowner's choice was made based on wild irrational assumptions, the robber is still dead, and most people would not consider that risk to be worth robbing somebody's home.

Letting people own guns is not supposed to give them greater power than the police, because they are expected to be in fewer situations where use of those guns could possibly be justified. The assumption is that it's an emergency matter in case the cops cannot get there in time.

[NGTM-1R]

Understandable to a degree, but if trained law-enforcement officers thought like that, there'd be an outcry, they only use deadly force if there's no other choice, and are investigated thoroughly when they need to do so. It seems odd that the people have more freedom when handling a gun than the law do.

Though Kazan doesn't believe it, the cops are trained in the use of restraint, not force. They rarely actually have cause to pull their weapons and are taught to do so only as a last resort; the appearance of the gun escalates the situation. People who don't come quietly are something of a rarity; people who actively resist instead of running off, rarer yet. Most of the time the police will try to talk the situation down or use alternate means like tazers and pepper spray for those departments so equipped; failing that, the classic tackle works well.

But the point is if an officer draws his weapon against an unarmed man something has gone seriously wrong and there will probably be some informal but still serious inquiries about his state of mind and reasoning. Having a gun in hand when going into an unknown situation is self-preservation and acceptable; pointing it at someone who is unarmed is not; firing at someone who does not constitute a clear, immediate danger to life and limb of the officer or others is cause for dismissal and criminal charges.

However, once it comes to the point where shots are being fired, the basic reasoning runs thusly: This person has commited some form of crime to come to the attention of the police, they are in the process of commiting another and have demonstrated a complete disregard for the safety of other people as they represent an imminent danger to said people, and they must be stopped. There is no middle ground in this situation and there is rarely time to do anything fancy; thus when it comes to gunfire police are trained to shoot to kill and shoot multiple times.

You're actually much more likely to survive being shot by a civilian because they lack they might lack the training to shoot well, and probably won't fire more than two or three times.

[CaptJosh]

vyper, you act like sawed-off shotguns are all the same size. They're not. First you have the different basic configurations of single barrel, double barrel side by side, double barrel over and under...  Sawed-off shotguns are a category of weapon mod, and plenty of the mods fall into the category of what an old family friend of mine called a "hall sweeper", with only a medium size chunk sawed off to make the weapon easier to maneuver in close quarters.  That said, with the advent of weapons like the H&K MP5, the FN P90, and still other small automatic rifles and Personal Defense Weapons, or PDWs, a shotgun for close quarters combat is becoming less necessary.

[neo_hermes]

if you use a .22 on someone they'll still be standing and capable of slapping you silly/ beating you to death. with a .22 they MIGHT die within a couple days if you hit them in a vital organ.

[MP-Ryan]

if you use a .22 on someone they'll still be standing and capable of slapping you silly/ beating you to death. with a .22 they MIGHT die within a couple days if you hit them in a vital organ.

Common misconception but absolutely false.  A .22 calibre weapon is just as lethal as any other in the right hands.  They merely lack the stopping power of a larger weapon.  However, a .22 bullet has much greater penetration than many other calibres, especially in the LR variant.  What they lack in overall mass and force of impact they more than make up for in penetration and ease of use (in civilian use, .22 revolvers are the most consistently accurate of any pistol, whether wielded by novice or expert).

If you didn't know, the venerable 5.56mm NATO round is based on a .22 calibre bullet (To be very specific, a .223).  The cartridge is considerably longer (packing in more powder and thus it has a greater muzzle velocity) and the bullets are typically a conical FMJ rather than a rounded soft-nosed lead, but the basic principle is the same.  If anything, the 5.56mm round has less true stopping power as its penetration is so great that it frequently passes right through targets instead of transferring energy at the point of impact.