Is it more humane to have a weapon that injures or a weapon that kills.?

Question

Most military forces use guns that injure a person rather than killing them so that it takes 3 people out of the frontline, the 1 that was shot and 2 to look after him. Is this not more cruel than just killing him outright?

Answer 1

The purpose is to shoot and wound an enemy thus denying his army his usefulness as a soldier. This in turn ties up resources behind their front line caring for their sick and wounded.

Answer 2

Killing someone is the ultimate of cruelty. Dragging a war out longer than necessary is also cruel. By forcing the enemy to expend manpower and money to take care of his wounded, he has less of each to carry out the war and will hopefully will be the one to lose the war sooner.

Along this line, there is a big debate about two stage laser sights on guns. One level, it is an aiming device like lasers used on the guns of police. The second level however, is blinding. A troop seeing an enemy sticking his head around a corner would have a choice, shoot him or blind him.

A blind soldier would need at least one other soldier to get him out of there and more to take care of him behind the lines. It would be the perfect weapon for removing enemy troops from the battle, preventing them from being returned to duty later and a major drain on the enemy.

The negative side is you will have people (liberals) complaining that it is an inhumane weapon, as if shooting the enemy is somehow better. It will also only be an effective weapon in the short term, as there are already laser guard goggles out there and it will not be too long before the enemy issues them to his troops.

Answer 3

Cruelness isn't a factor- this is war. Shooting to Kill and Shooting to Injure both have their good effects.

If you shoot to kill then you've just permanently relieved your enemy of a soldier- he won't be coming back later, and he's not going to crawl over to a gun and shoot you back.

If you just injure an enemy, then he might be brought off the frontlines and treated- then come back later- looking for you. But in the meantime, he's tying up extra resources- like you said, 1 man shot puts 3 men out of the fight.

It's hard to say which is crueler- looking at it one way, injuring someone means you'll win the battle without having to kill as many people- but it's equally possible that killing them outright could be nicer, if theres little chance they'll be picked up and treated by their side.

Answer 4

Sorry I think you are wrong.... Most military forces, which means minus the US and some friendly countries, use a round in their standard issued rifles, that are designed to kill, not wound. The AK 47, the most widely spread assault rifle in the world, is a Killing weapon, unlike the M 16 which is a wounding weapon for example. I mean the M 16 round is basically a .22 round, the kind you use to hunt squirrels, not large animals like deer or bear.

Answer 5

Guns were made to kill people. Who cares about humane, the guy you are shooting at is also shooting at you to harm or kill. Do you think he cares about how humane he is being. When I pull the trigger on someone, I want them down and never getting up. Although the idea is feasible of tying up more of the enemy's soldiers to treat the wounded ones, all too often the enemy must pull back leaving the wounded, and a wounded guy, depending how badly he is hurt, can be just as deadly as a healthy one. In Vietnam and since, America has gone to smaller caliber, less effective weapons with the shoot to wound idea in mind. However, our greatest victories in wartime came from WWI, WWII and Korea when we had the larger calibers and people were shooting to kill not just wound. These days, with the smaller type weapons, you just have to aim better to get results. A shot to the head, regardless of what weapon it is, usually gives good results.

Answer 6

Most weapons such as guns and bombs are designed to kill.It was drilled into me in the services that you dont point a weapon unless you intend to kill.Anti personel weapons such as landmines and booby traps are designed to injure and therefore use up personnel to recover the wounded and also make the rescuers vunerable.Viet Nam was a perfect example of using booby traps to wound US forces rather than kill for the reasons stated

Answer 7

a war is a war... I don't think the "humane" part belongs in the picture.

Hitler was wounded and a british soldier had a chance to kill him in the first world war, but didn't do. Who knows maybe that failure to kill him, resulted in millions of dead in WW2.
On the other hand there were many instances when enemy soldiers were given a "second chance" and alowed to live, and their families were very thankful, especially in situations where they were drafted by force.

Answer 8

its better to get rid of 3 people then 1 that's the way its looked at..
as if you just kill the person out right then the other 2 people it would of taken to look after that man can just forget him and get on with the mission in hand..
the more people off the battle field the better Chance the enemy have of winning..
all to do with man power on the field..

may be cruel but got to look at the bigger picture...

Answer 9

An SLR is devastating weapon, close quarter combat, the rounds go though the enemy.(High velocity weapon) Good ya. SMG is a parablum, so its good for CQC . To answer your question, its best too wound your foe, Kill or be killed.

Answer 10

Having no weapons is the only humane scenario...(in an ideal world)but we know that's it's not possible.
Having said that it makes sense to maim cos it ties up valuable resources,but all weapons kill if in the right hands...war is war to inflict as much mayhem and injury in as short a time as possible is the aim..♥

Answer 11

no i mean if u attackd someone with a weapon of that type they may be able to take there weapon and finish the firer off go to hospital and be back in the frontlines to kill more so no a weapon like that should be used in police work