[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't recall seeing this when you posted it the first time, but I'm not sure I can accept two pieces of anecdotal evidence as a rebuttal to the consensus view of those who train people in the use of handguns. Maybe I would be convinced if I could read the links, but they're in finnish. I tend to doubt it though. Even the anecdote makes little sense to me - the perpetrator is stabbing a woman, so he takes aim, shoots, hits the guy in the leg. He's still attacking her, so he aims carefully again, hits him in the hand (unclear how the hell that happened, unless it was dumb luck). Both of those bullets could have hit the woman, but didn't. So he's still stabbing her. Then the officer finally shoots him in the chest, stopping the attack.

If anything, that would appear to indicate that the correct place to shoot him in order to stop him from attacking the woman was in the chest in the first place. What the officer did was essentially put her life in danger as he attempted to display his marksmanship. But also, how did he manage to not only get the three shots off, but aim, fire, stop to evaluate whether the shot had the desired effect (is he still stabbing her? No? Better aim and shoot again) and repeat that twice? If a guy with a knife is 20 feet away from you and charges you, you do not have that kind of time.

I just don't buy it, and it would take quite a bit to convince me given the weight of the evidence and expertise going the other way.

Totally. That whole tale sounded absurd.