Caleb has a Great post up on “Shooting To Kill” and thinks the term “Shoot To Kill” shouldn’t be used by gunnies. I 100% agree, and in the comments shared 4 Scenarios I’ve used as debating tools on this very issue.
#1. I get attacked by a crazed dude hopped-up on goofballs who has a framing hammer, and thinks my head looks like a nail. I draw my gun and put a few shots into his COM and he falls to the ground and dies before authorities arrive.
#2. I get attacked by a crazed dude hopped-up on goofballs who has a framing hammer, and thinks my head looks like a nail. I draw my carry gun and he sobers up and runs away.
#3. I get attacked by a crazed dude hopped-up on goofballs who has a framing hammer, and thinks my head looks like a nail. I draw my carry gun and put a few shots into his COM, he falls, but is resuscitated by EMTs and goes on to live.
#4. I get attacked by a crazed dude hopped-up on goofballs who has a framing hammer, and thinks my head looks like a nail. I draw my carry gun and put a few shots into his COM. He then beats me to death and makes it half-way around the block before he bleeds out and dies.
So 4 Scenarios, half of them result in the attacker being killed, half where he lives. 1-3 are successful stories in just about everybody’s book, as you get to go home to your bed after all the mess is cleaned up. #4 you “Shot to Kill” and joined your killer in the Morgue. That’s a failure, despite a “clean kill”.
So yes indeed, I ONLY shoot to stop, NEVER to kill, because if my attacker lives or dies is of little importance to me, and not the reason why I carry, I carry because I just want to go home at the end of the day.
Dunno ’bout you fellers, but I shoot to hit. It’s a bit late to worry about terminal ballistics once you’ve set the pill upon its trajectory.
The eggheads in ballistics labs already considered things like initial penetration and the dangers of over-penetration. When I hear “shoot to wound”, I immediately understand this as an abbreviation which leaves off the words, “innocent bystanders.”
Well hitting the target isn’t enough as you can see with scenario #4. Hence the adage of “What’s worth shooting once, is worth shooting twice” but even if I end up reloading twice and feeding my attacker half-a-box of spendy carry ammo, my intentions are ALWAYS for him to stop what he’s doing, not to live or die. His life or death is irrelevant to me, only my life and the lives of innocent people are relevant to me in a life-or-death scenario.
Hitting the target might be not be enough, but it’s all you have!
Sure, I hope that the attack stops, but I certainly wouldn’t want to be held to an inhuman or otherwise impossible standard of accountability for events over which I had very little control. What’s the difference between shooting to stop and shooting to kill when the attacker dies from his injuries? The difference might sound like negligence (at the very least) to some prosecutor.
My point:
It’s nice and all that we can buy EBRs that aren’t missing parts, and that we now have an individual right to have a “gun permit” rejected, but the right of defense is what was eroded the most, and we could sure use some more elbow room. I don’t want to give another inch to disarmers by suggesting that my PDW has a disappoint/scare/stun/stop/kill/vaporize switch in addition to the bang switch–because it doesn’t.
Were I to recount my story in front of a jury, I would include every detail about what the attacker did, but account of personal thoughts beyond “and that’s when I decided to draw my weapon” will sit unreachable behind the Fifth Amendment.
My .450 and greater caliber handguns, they seem to have one setting so far, at least as far as hogs:
BANG-FLOP
Hogs are more tenacious about hanging on to life than most people.
Honestly, My Blackpowder .44s and .45s have about the same record in the field against porcines at appropriate range.
If I carry something more effective than a .32 rimfire, does that make me premeditated in murder if somebody puts me in a situation where I have to shoot them? If I decided to carry 9Para or .40 like Gabe does and plan on the better part of a mag dump into a hostile target to make sure they hit the ground fast, was my choice of firearm intentionally murderous?
I’m not playing “angels on pins” here. Seriously? If you are going to shoot somebody you have decided to potentially kill them, as warning shots are moronic, and shooting to wound will get you done for “malicious wounding…”
?????????
Thomas, outside of Texas people have little practice in the art of maintaining a republic. The bulk of what legislators and agencies do in the name of “public safety” might as well be counting dancing angels. Those people make rules, without regard for reality.
I’m not arguing that your approach doesn’t reflect reality, but that it’s generally a good idea in both tax audits and ass-backwards prosecutions of self-defenders to volunteer as little personal information as possible. Much the same way as Rule #1 admits that there is also an unloaded condition of a firearm–where the remaining three rules are ignored–admitting that there is such a thing as “shoot to ‘x'” invites ignorant disarmers to play word substitution; and in Narnia, or whatever alternate reality is wrapped around their conscious thought, there are no hunters of African big game to point out the relationship between breathing and the potential for a continued attack.
I’m already required give up a defensible position and turn my back on an attacker in lovely, corruption-infested Connecticut. I wouldn’t want to also be required to do something like “shoot to establish a dialog with a differently moral-ed individual of lesser economic stature”, before sending enough lead downrange to drop him. I’m content to give the disarmers nothing, and gather political ammunition as the they stumble in the dark while attempting to invent an art of self-defense on the basis of zero knowledge.
I shot a wildebeest once that was down on the ground for many minutes by the time I hiked up to him.
I made the mistake of assuming he was done and walked up to him as he got up and CHARGED me.
A person/animal isn’t stopped until it stops breathing and stops twitching.
Insurance shots are a good thing and if you had reason to shoot, you had reason to kill.
What’s worth shooting is worth KILLING. His life or death is irrelevant to you, your words.
His death most likely will make your and other people’s lives safer, both at the time, and in the future.
Call me callous. I AM. Do everything you can to not have to shoot people, if you have to shoot people, do it properly.
Legally, I shoot to stop.
Some states may have rules concerning liability – like for example if i shoot and cripple a BG, i could be liable for medical care ad infinitum. If he gets a toe tag there is a $100k civil liability cap.
Although, I’d try and argue for good samaritan protection, stopping the BG before he could harm someone else.
What if what’s handy on the bench or in the field at the time is .458 or .500?
How do you shoot to stop with powerful firearms? Shoot them in the knees?
That could be, AND HAS BEEN, adjudicated MORE THAN ONCE as—
MALICIOUS WOUNDING.
I didn’t pick the fight. And I don’t tend to own much, other than .22LR that would take more than a round or two…
???
If it is a 458 or 500 at hand, it is a 458 or 500 that is selected. Using the tools at hand to stop the attacker, which works out to XXX caliber COM until the threat stops. Why COM? Well that’s the place that will keep a BG from shooting back at you. Even if you tried the crazy “shoot the hand” or “in the shin” that’s not going to stop a BG from taking many actions against you.
For a short while in the 80’s the USN changed its policy in the case of some encounters to “shoot to wound.” At the time I was stationed in Yokosuka, Japan and had to re-qualify on the pistol quarterly. The re-qualification included classroom instruction followed by range time. At Yokosuka all of the pistol qualifications were done at the Marine Barracks with US Marine instructors.
I especially remember the first time I re-qualified after the USN implemented its new “shoot to wound” policy. The SSgt. teaching the classroom portion of the session told us that the new policy was “shoot to wound” and he did not really have a problem with that as long as you shoot to wound your target in center mass.
The classroom sessions were usually boring but that one was both educational and fun. I’ll never forget it.
Some pointy-head thought that one up. As in Scenario 4 and mentioned above an extremity shot is just as likely to be fatal as a round aimed at the wish-bone. Only difference is if you attacker dies before or AFTER they kill you.