Killing versus Capturing

[bushido_man96]

In the end, my goal is to go home! I will do what is necessary to meet that goal. Period. I don't think, "I'm gonna kill this guy." Rather, I simply defend until I feel the threat is gone.

I think that this is good mindset to have. A lot of LEOs think this way; "at the end of the shift, you want to go home." It is important, however, to make sure that you don't get too wrapped up and take something too far, causing yourself more trouble than you need.

[NinTai]

In different time periods, people had reservations about killing that were so high that in Napoleonic Warfare most soldiers would intentionally miss the targets they were shooting at because they didn't want to kill anybody. They have done studies of Napoleonic battles and discovered that a thousand bullets were fired for every shot that injured somebody. -JL

They did not have to intentionaly miss as muskets were not that accurate.

"Muskets were very inaccurate weapons and it was only the discipline of a large number of men firing them shoulder to shoulder - creating a wide wall of lead - that made it useful at anything over 100 metres.

An expert said in 1814 that: "I do maintain ... that no man was ever killed at 200 yards (180 metres) by a common musket, by the person who aimed at him.""

http://www.napoleonguide.com/weapacc.htm

Here one of the thing Napoleon said about war:

Remember , gentlemen, what a Roman emperor said: The corpse of an enemy always smells sweet.

[joesteph]

"Muskets were very inaccurate weapons and it was only the discipline of a large number of men firing them shoulder to shoulder - creating a wide wall of lead - that made it useful at anything over 100 metres.

An expert said in 1814 that: "I do maintain ... that no man was ever killed at 200 yards (180 metres) by a common musket, by the person who aimed at him.""

http://www.napoleonguide.com/weapacc.htm

Rifles, with their twist that gave greater accuracy as well as distance, took more time to make, and were therefore more expensive. Lines of men firing huge lead bullets (which would swell up even larger on impact) were not so much in need of individual weapon accuracy as much as discipline of the soldiers. Your line fires a hail of bullets, then you coolly reload while the enemy line is firing right back at you (and didn't you make a great target with the colorful uniform you wore?). If you survived the enemy volley (the man on your right wasn't so lucky, but you don't think about it), then you returned fire in the manner a good soldier did--with the discipline of shoulder-to-shoulder, aiming at the enemy line, and firing on command.

As I interpret, though, from earlier postings, we're dealing with martial arts as they apply to us in our daily lives. We seek to defend ourselves, and even have a government agency--the police--to fall back on. There are even laws to protect the rights of the criminal, that you don't kill the pickpocket (although you might have reacted immediately by a shot to his nose), but capture if possible and turn him over to the police. You might even be with your children, and two men accost you; you have to decide if you truly have the option of fighting, or if you have no option but to fight. In the latter case, no option, you might be justified in using greater force than if the children were not present.

Perhaps it's a matter of situation ethics. What you should or shouldn't do, despite your martial arts training, may boil down to the situation presented.

[tallgeese]

Muskets were very inaccurate, that's correct. There have been some studies however that do indicate that there were quite a few intentionaly non-firers during that time frame, and several others for that matter. A couple are discussed in Col. Grossman's "On Killing" and "On Combat". I'd refer anyone there who wanted to start digging on this matter.

He freely admits that some of the studies that he cites have methodology problems, but there's some interesting information there. Espically as it realates to more realistic training methods and firing rates.

[FitOrDie]

Seems to me in a one-on-one situation, killing is easier than capturing. Capturing often involves keeping the person under your control, forcing them to submit to you, always being ready if they try to escape capture... Killing a person is relatively easy if you have even a basic idea how, then it's over and done. So... I disagree with the entire premise here.

[Bushido-Ruach]

I like and agree with what ps1 wrote...

In the end, my goal is to go home! I will do what is necessary to meet that goal. Period. I don't think, "I'm gonna kill this guy." Rather, I simply defend until I feel the threat is gone.

I think he (or she, whichever the case may be) said it all, and said it rather good!