Shoot to thrill or shoot to kill?

[Gunslinger45]

Ok the title was just for fun, BUT here's a serious question to all the CCW's out there. I recently started a thread about ammo and it got me thinking....

If ever in a position where you had to draw down on an individual, would you shoot to kill, or shoot to injure (say shot to the leg etc.) ??

Personally, I feel as though you don't carry a gun for fun and ultimately when you carry, you should carry with the intention that if needed you would take someone's life. Obviously, no one wants to take another's life however should we run the risk of losing ours as well by injuring?

Ready....GO!

 

[eldirector]

I will shoot to end the threat. Nothing less, and nothing more.

 

[Que]

I would shoot until the person stopped doing whatever they were doing that caused me to shoot them.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Guy at a bar was chatting me up about this recently. He was saying you probably want to "aim for the leg or something, right?"

I corrected him, told him center-of-mass. He said "But that's where the heart is..."

Seemed a little sketchy on how to stop a threat, but that's what you do. Stop the threat. Whatever happens after that, happens.

 

[eldirector]

I suppose you are really asking WHERE would I shoot?

Since the entire goal is to end the threat as quickly and efficiently as possible (and safely - for me and any bystanders), the appropriate thing is to aim for "center of mass". You are much more likely to stop the threat, and much less likely to miss (and possibly hit something/someone else).

Remember: the vast majority of self defense situations occur well within 20' (more like 10" or less), and last 3-5 SECONDS. This isn't target shooting. You don't get 10 points for a "bull's eye" - you get to live another day.

 

[blamecharles]

What ^^^they^^^ said. I will shoot until the threat has stopped being a threat or i'm out of bullets.

 

[Tinner666]

^^^^^^Asked and Answered by everybody else before I got here.^^^^

 

[dj-vektor]

As military police it is taught we shoot to stop the threat. That being said we fire at head and 'vital areas' when qualifying, which would fatally wound someone. I think if you could stop the threat with an arm shot you might not have the cause to justify deadly force.

 

[brotherbill3]

ditto x8. or what they all said.

 

[88GT]

As military police it is taught we shoot to stop the threat. That being said we fire at head and 'vital areas' when qualifying, which would fatally wound someone. I think if you could stop the threat with an arm shot you might not have the cause to justify deadly force.

You can use deadly force based on what the other person is doing or what you think he's going to do. Not on the minimum force required to stop the threat. Since you can't ascertain what it would take to stop the threat, people have heretofore been rather rational on determining the justifiability of deadly force based on the actions of the bad guy, not the what ifs of the possible self defense shooting.

 

[devil07]

Here is something else to think about:
First: I am Not a lawyer

For the most part, the law, and therefore the police/prosecutors/etc, treat any discharge of a firearm at another person as deadly force. So, even if you are Wild Bill reincarnated, fully capable of intentionally wounding someone and not killing them....they'll look to see if deadly force was justified.

 

[Ruffnek]

I agree with the others,shoot to end the threat.That being said,I believe the legal issues would be less if the attacker never got up.

 

[wtfd661]

I will shoot to end the threat. Nothing less, and nothing more.

This!!

 

[jwh20]

Ok the title was just for fun, BUT here's a serious question to all the CCW's out there. I recently started a thread about ammo and it got me thinking....

If ever in a position where you had to draw down on an individual, would you shoot to kill, or shoot to injure (say shot to the leg etc.) ??

Personally, I feel as though you don't carry a gun for fun and ultimately when you carry, you should carry with the intention that if needed you would take someone's life. Obviously, no one wants to take another's life however should we run the risk of losing ours as well by injuring?

Ready....GO!

If you are justified in drawing your weapon, then it is in response to a lethal threat. If you intentionally shoot to injure you absolutely run the risk of not eliminating the threat to your life. A leg shot, for instance, while serious, still leaves the bad-guy with two good arms to carry out his lethal threat to you. In additional, now you've compromised yourself as having a weapon. If he was just threatening to kill you, now he will kill you because you've shot him.

In the event you are justified in using lethal force against an assailant, you want to use what you have to eliminate that threat to yourself. You may not actually deliver a lethal response, but to attempt only to injure is foolish.

 

[DRob]

Lethal force

If you don't have reason to kill him, you don't have reason to shoot him!

 

[Jack Burton]

As I taught my kids, "Never shoot to take a life, only shoot to save a life."

 

[Gunslinger45]

Man theres alot of solid thoughts here. I personally couldnt agree more with the previous two comments!! I do agree also though with the mob consensus of "shoot until the threat is neutralized" ....On that note, when does overkill come into effect??? I mean, hollywood portrays x-actor pumping x-amount of rounds into a bad guy...Do the same rules apply? Or rather, when does shoot to neutralize or stop turn into excessive force?

 

[Aaron1776]

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared."
-Niccolo Machiavelli

This has applications to politics, war, the company boardroom, and self defense.
If you shoot a guy in the leg/arm/shoulder, his mind is going to dump adrenaline into his body. He is then going to ignore that injury and do everything he can to take you out. Considering how much pistols suck at bringing men down, shooting a guy, who already has a ton of adrenaline pumping into his system, in the leg isn't on the top of my list of things to do.

Do I want to kill anyone? No. But if he is such a scumbag that he is starting fights with law abiding citizens...well then he is a danger to society and needs to be stopped, not merely pissed off.

 

[hoosierdoc]

As I taught my kids, "Never shoot to take a life, only shoot to save a life."

I would change it to "avoid a life being destroyed" to include rape, kidnapping, etc... But overall that is my exact sentiment.

 

[92ThoStro]

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared."
-Niccolo Machiavelli

This has applications to politics, war, the company boardroom, and self defense.
If you shoot a guy in the leg/arm/shoulder, his mind is going to dump adrenaline into his body. He is then going to ignore that injury and do everything he can to take you out. Considering how much pistols suck at bringing men down, shooting a guy, who already has a ton of adrenaline pumping into his system, in the leg isn't on the top of my list of things to do.

Do I want to kill anyone? No. But if he is such a scumbag that he is starting fights with law abiding citizens...well then he is a danger to society and needs to be stopped, not merely pissed off.

This, anyone here who has ever been hurt bad enough knows how powerful adrenaline is. Wounds become nearly painless, and you just shake a little.