Shooting to Kill vs. Shooting to Disable with ValueMags

This has been a popular debate surrounding gun laws in the United States for the past couple of years: how are police taught to use their weapons? ValueMags employees weigh in on the issue: individuals should be punished for what they do wrong but not by being shot. It seems as though the police do not understand the value of one’s life. Understandably, if the individual is armed, the police have more reason to pull out a gun on them. But, should they shoot to kill or too disable?

In Chicago this past week, a young boy allegedly tried to rob a twenty-four year old man in a bank parking lot after he went to the ATM. The boy was armed but so was the twenty-four year old. The boy however was not legally armed while the man had a permit to cary his gun. The robbery turned into a shoot out. The boy was driven to the hospital where he was pronounced dead by medical professionals. The man is now in questioning. ValueMags employees question whether people should be allowed to carry around guns like that. Then again, if that man was not armed, he would have been robbed and killed. So who’s fault is it? How could the situation have been prevented? ValueMags employees believe that with stricter gun laws, neither of the men would have had guns. As a result, the young boy would not have felt as comfortable robbing anyone without being armed. If guns are going to remain a part of American culture, individuals need to at least undergo intense training (including police) to be licensed to have one. Guns kill. It is simple. Although the chest and shoulders are the largest target to hit on the human body, individuals should be taught to shoot for the thighs. Once someone is shot in the leg, they can not get away on foot quickly and they will likely fall, disabling them. One shot to the chest, as happened to the boy, will kill someone.

If you have any information about the issue, ValueMags urges you to contact Chicago police. Thank you for your time and cooperation.