Quote:
Originally Posted by mike campbell
What was that?
"Police found the man lying in the driveway. He was taken to a hospital and into surgery. He is listed in critical condition."
Sounds like a one-shot stop to me.
|
The key word is "guaranteed".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fredj338
Why it should be called an eye shot. The bullet goes straight into the brain pan, lights out, party is over. Plus the eye is a very convenient aiming point.
|
One...no. I don't think so. Plenty of people have not only survived traumatic brain injuries, but walked away from the scene. If they can walk, then they're more than capable of still being a threat.
Two, how big is the human eye? Well, the average eye socket is about .95"x.95". For reference, an American quarter is
also .955". Ain't that a thing. Now here's where it gets interestin'.
If you can hit a 1" circle on demand, then it stands to reason that you should also be able to shoot the gun out of your attacker's hand.
But we all know that's a fantasy. So if you accept that you can't shoot the gun out of someone's hand, on demand, why would anyone think they could reliably make the eye-socket shot?
The other problem is
consistently hitting a fixed point. Most people can't do that. Even fewer are the ones that can do it on-demand, under pressure, at an unknown distance. Most folks shoot off-center groups, fact of life. Shooting a group the size of the 10-ring doesn't count if it's six inches to the left.
Which is the other reason why I don't think head shots are the "guaranteed" stoppers they're made out to be. Are they effective? Sure. Have they won gunfights in situations where the shooter was deliberately aiming for them? Certainly, and I can cite them (including the ones where it took
several head shots to achieve a stop).
But "more effective" and "useful" are a long way from "guaranteed".