PDA

View Full Version : 2 to the chest, 1 to the groin...


huntinaz
February 18, 2011, 10:16 PM
I never thought I'd start a thread in the "strategy and tactics" forum, but here we go. Pigs are flying somewhere. Anyway...

When I qualified for my CCW the instructor had us shooting 2 to the chest, 1 to the groin. I know most folks go 1 to the head as opposed to the groin, and I didn't give the notion much more than a chuckle at first but it got me thinking. I have a medical background and acually I believe there are some major benefits to the "1 to the groin" option. Also let me clarify, the groin is not the actual place I'd aim, more like a low center of mass, say just below the belly button. Here are the pros as I see them:

1. It's a bigger target than the head. Better chance of hitting something. Your aim is not likely to be as good as it is at the range due to the adrenaline and nerves of shooting somebody.

2. There's a whole lot of "bad" stuff down there. The area around/above the actual groin has spine, hip, vascualture, major nerves...you hit this stuff and it is bad news.

We know that pain sensitivity is high, it would very likely make somebody double over. It is unlikey somebody is going to advance after you break a femur, hip, or spine. Touch a big nerve and they pain will be bad as I said before. Hit that vasculature and you start bleeding out. Also there is a lot of bacteria that is gonna get into the blood and tissue with disruption to this area. Not that the goal is to kill somebody days later from an infection but the reality is that an infection will be started.

As you can see, not a bad place at all to inflict immediate pain and serious injury. Of course the legal term for this is to "stop the threat" but the reality is that in order to do that, the pain/serious injury thing is what facilitates that.

The one con, as I see it, is that the absolute best way to somebody advancing is a brain/high CNS shot. You hit that and the response is indeed immediate. I'm a hunter and I have seen this first hand.

So, what say you internet experts? I think I'm convinced of this method myself, please discuss further.

Dr_Rich
February 18, 2011, 10:30 PM
I'd agree. In fact I was just in another thread talking about the Tuellder Drill and I mentioned hitting someone in the knee/lower part of the body as apposed to dumping a mag in the chest.

My theory was close to yours. Immobilization. I'm not a hunter, but I've seen my share of hunts were someone put a 30-06 thru a deer and it runs away. Thats with no adrenaline pumping at the time of impact. But thats not to say I've never seen it drop a deer in its tracks. That would just be silly.

Jake Balam
February 18, 2011, 10:34 PM
Shooting someone in the extremities is not deadly force, the legal ramifications are bad.

However a lower body shot to me sounds like a good idea.

shooter_john
February 18, 2011, 11:16 PM
I have been through LEO firearms courses and particular instructors who also advocate the same tactic. Though I was taught in those courses to aim for the hip/pelvis more so than the "groin". The idea being to stop the attacker from advancing further and making them a more stabilized/ slower moving target for a CNS shot should it be needed. Also, as the OP mentioned, there is a lot of blood moving through that area of the body.

I think it is a sound idea and a good alternative to trying to make a headshot.

orionengnr
February 18, 2011, 11:38 PM
Just my .02...
But I think you are engaging in "projecting" your own fears of being kicked in the groin (which we have all experienced) and believing that this is a viable SD tactic.

I have read other threads that advocate shooting for the groin as a psychological target. If the BG sees you targeting his nads, he will shrivel, lie down in a corner and call for his momma. I'd call this a long shot at best.

You say that the groin/hip is a larger target than the head. The entire width of the lower midsection...yes. Is your groin larger than your head? If so, we could make endless jokes about "thinking with the small head" :)

war_elephant
February 18, 2011, 11:41 PM
Its called the pelvic girdle shot. a legitimate alternate shot placement for body armor. Also the thigh, femoral artery shot. Sometimes pointing your weapon towards an offender's "junk" will cause him to think twice and surrender. I have seen it happen on the job before I retired. I for one would rather get shot in the head than there. :eek:

huntinaz
February 18, 2011, 11:55 PM
But I think you are engaging in "projecting" your own fears of being kicked in the groin (which we have all experienced) and believing that this is a viable SD tactic.

I have read other threads that advocate shooting for the groin as a psychological target. If the BG sees you targeting his nads, he will shrivel, lie down in a corner and call for his momma. I'd call this a long shot at best.



I think you may want to re-read the post and brush up on human anatomy. I'm not projecting any fears or talking about a psychological target. I'm talking about actual human anatomy and actually putting a bullet thru it. There are real-life nerve endings down there, and not just in the sexual organs. Think about how sensitive that area is (lower stomach, groin, and yes junk), and then think about having a bullet zip thru it. Bad pain and bad news. Anyway the pain is only one of many good reasons to aim there.

you say that the groin/hip is a larger target than the head. The entire width of the lower midsection...yes. Is your groin larger than your head?

Again, go back and re-read. The groin is a generic aiming point, it doesn't matter where you hit as long as you hit. You're not aiming exactly for the weener, I'm talking low center of mass. Lot's of important stuff down there. Yes, the area is bigger than the human head. The actual "package"...I admit it is not bigger than my head:o

But if you read my post you'll see that's not at all what I'm talking about.

orionengnr
February 19, 2011, 12:05 AM
think you may want to re-read the post and brush up on human anatomy.
My point exactly. If you read up on the actual mechanics of stopping a human attacker, there are about two ways to accomplish that.

The first, and most effective, is massive CNS damage. Very difficult to accomplish.

The second is massive vascular damage (bleed-out). Not much easier to accomplish, and a good deal slower...e.g., the bad guy is stiill returning fire until his blood pressure drops and his brain ceases to function. Generally accepted to be 30 seconds or more.

Hitting someone n the hip area may immobilize him, but in the real world, it sure as Hell will not stop him from returning fire.

Do you want your headstone to read, "Damn, I stopped him from advancing/retreating! Thought that would do the trick!"

huntinaz
February 19, 2011, 12:30 AM
Hitting someone n the hip area may immobilize him, but in the real world, it sure as Hell will not stop him from returning fire.
I believe it will indeed stop them, at least from doing something useful. At least long enough to get away or shoot them again. It isn't like the movies where you get shot up and keep going until you're shot in the head. I'm not talking about shooting John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, or Arnold as the Terminator. I mean real people, who get hurt when they get shot. Also I'm not saying you should shoot once to low center of mass and then stop. You are getting too hung up on the fact that the weener is down there. That's really not at all what I'm talking about.

So if you think a low center mass shot is worthless, are only head shots effective then because that's the only place you can cause "massive CNS damage?" Why bother with 2 to the chest then? I acknowledged in my original post that a high CNS shot is the most effective way of stopping somebody right now. But I don't think that is necessarily the first place you should aim. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I'm saying in general, a low center mass shot is a good spot to hit somebody.

The second is massive vascular damage (bleed-out).

Exactly, if you agree with this then a low center mass shot will accomplish this.

Guys, please don't get hung up on the junk, that's not the actual target. If you disagree that's fine, but put some more thought into it than that.

Bartholomew Roberts
February 19, 2011, 01:37 AM
Shooting someone in the extremities is not deadly force, the legal ramifications are bad.

You are mistaken. In all 50 states, shooting someone anywhere IS deadly force.

I believe it will indeed stop them

The local hospital just had an 84yr old woman come in with a broken hip. She broke it a week earlier in a fall but the pain finally overcame her fear of the doctor.

A quick Internet search will show that the kind of damage necessary to break the pelvic girdle is not going to be easy to do with a handgun.

Furthermore, while it is possible for someone to bleed out from a shot here, the chest offers a much better chance of hitting major vascalature or a large blood bearing organ - not to mention that there is much less of the CNS available in the pelvis.

If you search on "pelvis" you'll find several good discussions on this.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283554&highlight=pelvis

Crazy88Fingers
February 19, 2011, 02:02 AM
It is tactically sound. But I'm not sure I could live with myself knowing I shot some guy in the junk. It just ain't right.

Trigger Finger
February 19, 2011, 02:29 AM
Don't they make class I and II bullet proof clothing to cover this area? I know they make bullet proof cups.
It may not do any more than force him to take a step or two backward or knock him down. I would like to be sure with a head shot!!

Wildalaska
February 19, 2011, 03:26 AM
Folks who advocate such silliness know nothing about our justice system to go with their ignorance of morality and physiology

WilditsimmoralstupidandpotentiallydangeroustohealthandwelfareAlaska ™©2002-2011

Eagle0711
February 19, 2011, 03:29 AM
I get the reasoning here, but I'm for the head. The one on top of the shoulders.

You also have to consider if you gun is powerful enough to break the pelvic girdle. What if you like a lot of folks are carrying a 380 with a 95 gr. bullet or even a smaller caliber?
And as already mentioned, he'll shot you while he is down.

boredom
February 19, 2011, 03:59 AM
if needed, shoot until they stop advancing towards you, then get to a safe distance and call 911. im not going for headshots or groin shots unless its accidental.

dreamweaver
February 19, 2011, 04:01 AM
the lower abdomen, hip, groin etc would not be a kill shot. think about it, what major organs are in that region?
small bowel and colon. people survive trauma to those organs everyday. the only hope for a kill shot is hitting the abdominal aorta, which is 2cm wide in a normal adult male. even that shot wouldn't be fatal for over a minute.
2 to the chest;
collapse one or both lungs, heart is a 7.5 cm target in the average adult male.
folks don't fight well when they can't breath. even worse if they have a hole in their heart.
one to the head;
realistically the only definitive kill shot. not much chance of the bg returning fire.
now, having said that, i was working ER one night when the local LE brought in an attempted suicide. shot himself through the mouth. had an exit wound the size of a quarter on the back of the head. the LE had to restrain him to get him in the ambulance. i pronounced him dead 10 minutes after his arrival in the ER, a full 30 minutes after the shot!

huntinaz
February 19, 2011, 07:18 AM
Folks who advocate such silliness know nothing about our justice system to go with their ignorance of morality and physiology

Umm, what exactly is immoral about it? And what about the physiology is incorrect, exactly?

Remember I'm not suggesting this is a one stop shot, it would be additive.

PawPaw
February 19, 2011, 08:26 AM
There is a certain utility in anchoring someone to a given spot, and breaking the hip will do that. Sure, the bad guy can still return fire, but he can't move.

Hunters of dangerous game like to break large bones to slow down, stop a charge and anchor the threat.

When I was studying Land Warfare with my Uncle, he taught us that some vehicles are harder to stop than others. A shot into a turret might not be available, but a shot into the engine compartment, or into the track of the vehicle would anchor the threat. We called that a Mobility Kill. A tank that can only fire is called a pillbox, and pillboxes are easily reduced to rubble.

We can extend the metaphor to the man with a broken hip. He's easy to get away from. Running away, seeking cover, is good tactics. It's easy for the police to find a guy with a broken hip. He'll be laying where he was shot.

If I"m ever tasked with shooting someone in a scenario such as this, I'm not trying to kill him, even though I'm using lethal force. I'm trying to stop him from committing a criminal act, to stop him from harming innocents. Sure, I'm using lethal force, but whether or not he dies isn't up to me. For sure, I'd rather he survived to be arrested, tried, convicted and executed. I'll be aiming at the center of mass, but if my adrenaline gets away from me and one of my shots happens to take out his hip, that's in the hands of God.

smince
February 19, 2011, 08:49 AM
I'm for the head.Yes. If the BG is extremely close (and in most cases he will be), then he needs to be turned off NOW!

While a shot on a moving head at 7+ yds will be difficult, at close range it should be relatively easy if you have practiced much. I've seen very inexperienced shooters do head shots on moving persons in FoF scenarios.

jgcoastie
February 19, 2011, 09:21 AM
I've been taught to shoot center-of-mass. So that's where I'll aim. It's a simple concept, and one that has worked for many decades in LE. The biggest concern for me is to apply the same training I have been through in the CG to my CCW practices. That way, if I ever wind up in court, I can articulate why I did what I did because of my training. In the CG, if deadly force is authorized, we are taught to shoot for center-of-mass, regardless of the amount of mass showing. Example: BG is shooting from around a corner and all I can see is part of the shoulder/arm, I would shoot for the center-of-mass of what's showing. If BG is shooting from frontal position with entire upper body showing, I would shoot for the center-of-mass that is showing.

Simple principle backed by decades of training in the LE and civilian worlds.

LordTio3
February 19, 2011, 09:24 AM
There are many inaccuracies here that need to be addressed.

1. The OP is not advocating shooting someone in the genitalia. He is simply asking what we think about targeting the Pelvic Region as a viable immobilizing shot.

2. Psychological stops and Physical stops are very different things that occur for very different reasons. However, both are stops and have defensive value.

3. The Pelvic Shot is a viable stopping shot. Don't attempt to use it.

The pelvic shot is a tactic that was developed and trained by law enforcement. After some high-profile shootouts in the last few decades, law enforcement personnel were made painfully aware of the presence and usefulness of body armor, as it was used by well-armed perpetrators.

The "Headshot" has always, and will always be the end-all, be-all incapacitating shot (And it's the CENTER of the head; not High-Middle, regardless of what you see in the movies). But anyone who's seen a true shooting take place will tell you that achieving a headshot in the heat of the battle is an aspiration at best; especially when the assailant is shooting back at you with the confidence that near-impenetrable body armor provides.

Enter the Pelvic Shot.

It is trained by Sharpshooters to incapacitate the shooters, and it's a much easier shot to make. The groin doesn't sweep around like the head does (Ask any successful defensive football player where they look at a ball-carrier to see where he's going. Not the head or shoulders, watch his hips). So you shoot him in the groin and you can achieve one of the following:
1. Broken Pelvis- Debilitating and painful. Makes the central weight-bearing structure of the body incapable of supporting weight.

2. Large Sensitive Vascular Damage- Slightly debilitating, mostly painful. A shot to the hip, groin, or femur/quad impacts highly sensitive areas rich in blood and nerve tissue. Makes it hard to continue the attack.

Sounds like a great tactic right? Now for the major difference. The guys using this tactic are shooting .308 rifle rounds or something close. You are most likely not carrying a .308 concealed on your person. The standard self-defense handgun calibers and loads do not possess the appropriate level of ballistic intensity to shatter a pelvis, so the best thing you can hope for is a vascular shot to cause damage. And if the round you're carrying is only capable of vascular damage, the appropriate tactic would be to direct that toward the major organs including the heart and spine: Center of Mass.

It is wrong that CCW classes are teaching this tactic without fully understanding where it came from or what it's intended use it (and obviously being unable to convey that to their students). So please, for your own safety, put this tactic on the back burner and don't consider it a viable option for self defense.

To be perfectly honest, and I've been telling people this for quite some time, your absolute BEST tactic for personal self defense is:
Two in the Chest, One in the Chest.
Don't get fancy. Don't try to throw out something someone once tried to teach you. Put as many shots as fast as you can into the most vital area of the body. And don't stop until he does. Simple.

I hope this finds you well and provides some help.

~LT

mete
February 19, 2011, 09:31 AM
Center of mass is not the best target. Upper chest has more vital stuff , go there !
A hit to the lower spine will paralyze the entire hind end instantly.That's exactly what happened to my deer last year. I also saw a video of a going away shot in that area at a cape buffalo .The buffalo was wounded and they didn't want to track him in heavy brush .His hind end instantly dropped and anchored him though he was still alive.!

bravo124
February 19, 2011, 09:53 AM
I've been a SWAT instructor for around ten years. The reason we teach this method (called a failure drill) is if the bad guy is on the move and is wearing body armor, then it will be difficult to shut him down with a shot to the cranial vault if not at close range. Your first two shots should be center mass. If that fails, Depending upon your distance, your follow up shot in the pelvic girdle is a good option. There is a good chance that you will shatter the pelvis/hip area and drop him like a sack of potatoes. At this point, he will then become a stationary target. You then assess whether to shut him down (if he keeps firing) or if you accomplished your mission by stopping the threat. We have a lot of options at this point. (taking cover, moving to a better position for a follow up shot). Our primary goal is to win and go home to our family. We need every advantage that we can get, so don't rule out that option.

jgcoastie
February 19, 2011, 10:03 AM
LT3, great response, very informative. Thanks.

LordTio3
February 19, 2011, 10:04 AM
1. I don't know a whole lot of civilians that encounter an assailant wearing body armor. And all else being equal, when faced with an un-armored assailant, I'd rather shoot the man in the chest than shoot him in the pelvis.

2. Center of mass is not the best target. Upper chest has more vital stuff , go there !

"Center of Mass" isn't so much a "target" as it is a "tactic". We train to shoot Center of Mass because this is the point of aim that will most likely yield us a hit considering target movement, imperfect accuracy, and multiple shots. How lucky that the human body is put together in such a way that most of the more important stuff is located just about in the same area.

Center of Mass is your best bet when defending yourself. I don't think I've ever heard an instructor teach, "Upper Chest".

~LT

jglsprings
February 19, 2011, 10:23 AM
In Jim Cirillio's (sp?) books he said the pelvis shot (groin in this thread) would "always" knock down the target. - He also said the targets were still a danger, but it gave you the chance to move in and disarm.

YMMV - But his books should be required reading for membership on this forum.

TailGator
February 19, 2011, 10:25 AM
I agree that a civilian is highly unlikely to encounter a BG with body armor. But if you do, walking your shots down to a hit in the lower abdomen has a lot better chance of scoring a hit than walking your shots up to the head. In other words, it may be a better tactic to get a fast hit in the lower abdomen or pelvis than to have to try several times to get a hit on the head, even though the head may be more quickly debilitating.

It is not entirely true to say that the lower abdomen has only the aorta as a vital structure. The mesenteric arteries to the large and small bowel are pretty substantial in size, and the arteries that run along the intestine are not puny, either. Instantly debilitating like a shot to the brain stem, no, but in the same way that a shot to the chest that misses the heart and aorta still causes some pretty significant damage and bleeding in the lungs, a shot to the lower abdomen that misses the aorta will also cause some significant bleeding in the abdomen and/or pelvis, along with a great deal of pain from sensitive peritoneal surfaces. Overall, a hit there is better than a miss to the head, and it may well give you the time you need for an escape.

Optimal? No, but neither should it be entirely dismissed, I would think. A reasonable option to keep in mind.

LordTio3
February 19, 2011, 10:47 AM
I agree that a civilian is highly unlikely to encounter a BG with body armor. But if you do,

I think we're getting a bit ridiculous here. I agree that a civilian is highly unlikely to encounter a charging crocodile, but just in case you do...:rolleyes:

This tactic is best left to the people who would more likely encounter an armored assailant (LEO, Military). And they will be the first to tell you that if the person is NOT wearing armor, then the much better option would be to shoot them in the chest. It just is.

In Jim Cirillio's (sp?) books he said the pelvis shot (groin in this thread) would "always" knock down the target.

Nothing ALWAYS happens in a gunfight. Nothing. And you should be increasingly suspicious of anyone (and I don't care who it is) who speaks to you about Best, Worst, Always, or Never when it comes to weapons or tactics. There is no supremacy. There is only better, or worse; no best or worst.

~LT

Water-Man
February 19, 2011, 10:56 AM
The problem we have here is all the comments coming from people who have never been in combat/shoot-out with someone trying to kill you.

Catfishman
February 19, 2011, 11:08 AM
There are lots of complete misses in gun fights. A missed groin shot is less likely to hit a bystander than a missed head shot.

That said, I still think the headshot is the best way to end a gun fight.

DixieboyFL
February 19, 2011, 11:58 AM
My Preference:

Two to the Chest, One right between the eyes................

Wildalaska
February 19, 2011, 12:42 PM
Umm, what exactly is immoral about it? And what about the physiology is incorrect, exactly?

Whats immoral about it...?

It's a law enforcement/military technique of weapons deployment designed to impair/immobilize an attacker/enemy.....shoot 'em in the balls outside the wire and listen to the goblins scream, ja?

But most of us here are armed citizens. As a consequence thereof, it is, IMHO, your moral duty to never pop that round off until you have cowered begged pleaded run hide and do everything in your power to avoid pulling that trigger.

Hell, I bet ya in a good percentage of cases, you shouldnt even be in a position where you need to employ that gun. Why are you in gangbanger town at 4am? Why did you run outside to confront the guy peeing on your lawn? What are you gonna do, shoot the pizza guy in the hip?

And when you do shoot, you had better have no other choice. The last and final resort. And that means you don't play Gecko45, you empty your piece into either COM or face, hopefully from a few yards away.

The next to last thing you want to do is shoot somebody. Physiology?....The last thing you want to do is shoot somebody in a painful area and watch him writhe and scream on the ground as sirens scream in the background. Ya think he is gonna "bleed out" (what a manly term).....Gee maybe we will see someone advocating finishing him off...Naw, whats gonna happen is you will break that hip, leave the 20 year old crippled and....

Get your civil defense lawyer ready. Los muertes no hablas no longer applies. And maybe your perp was Jean Valjean

Honestly, if folks would stop the measuring contests of calibers and extra mags and hollowpoints and started concentrating on reading about the moral and ethical ramifications of taking life together with reading your own state laws on self defense you would be far better prepared for that once in a lifetime incident.

Shoot 'em in the hip indeed.

The problem we have here is all the comments coming from people who have never been in combat/shoot-out with someone trying to kill you.

No, the problem is actually all the comments coming from people who have never been in combat/shoot-out with someone trying to kill them, but saw it on a video game and want to be in that shootout.

Join the Army then. Plenty of true evil ones to shoot at

WildimsotiredoftestosteroneAlaska ™©2002-2011

Trigger Finger
February 19, 2011, 07:28 PM
"The pelvic shot is a tactic that was developed and trained by law enforcement."
LordTio3, I have over 30 years in law enforcement and was never taught this. Including my SWAT Training!!!!!!
The head shot is only taught, with a handgun, at 7 yards and less. With practice it's not that hard!

"At this point, he will then become a stationary target"
bravo, he also becomes a stationary threat, not out of action. And I was never taught this in my SWAT Training!

LordTio3 "Nothing ALWAYS happens in a gunfight. Nothing. And you should be increasingly suspicious of anyone (and I don't care who it is) who speaks to you about Best, Worst, Always, or Never when it comes to weapons or tactics. There is no supremacy. There is only better, or worse; no best or worst. " I was referring to my personal department training, in reality there is static with some clarity. Overall I agree with statement1 IMOHO. :D

Rspeters
February 19, 2011, 08:16 PM
I think one benefit that hasn't been discussed about the groin shot is the potential of limiting said bg from ever reproducing again even if he does live.

Nnobby45
February 19, 2011, 08:29 PM
1. It's a bigger target than the head. Better chance of hitting something. Your aim is not likely to be as good as it is at the range due to the adrenaline and nerves of shooting somebody.



Not an expert, but we've all seen actual shootings on tv or dvd. Can't recall , during a life and death situation, ANYONE having had time to put two in the chest, let alone one in the head or groin. It's always a life and death struggle and things happen FAST.

Doesn't mean there aren't situations where one of the aforementioned tactics wouldn't be the thing to do. OK, Bubba could be wearing a vest.

If that situation arises, put the third bullet where you can dictated by the circumstances, but one target may be more available than the other. If you really believe you can plan that in advance----best of luck. :cool:

Stevie-Ray
February 19, 2011, 08:55 PM
I once went shooting with my BIL, who at the time was a cop, and he told me he was then being trained to shoot twice center mass, and one to the groin. This was about 15 or so years ago. So it was definitely being taught by some police agencies.

But most of us here are armed citizens. As a consequence thereof, it is, IMHO, your moral duty to never pop that round off until you have cowered begged pleaded run hide and do everything in your power to avoid pulling that trigger.Huh? The idea of not begging and pleading for my life was one of the utmost reasons for my even getting a CPL.:rolleyes:

Wildalaska
February 19, 2011, 10:35 PM
The idea of not begging and pleading for my life was one of the utmost reasons for my even getting a CPL

Then I guess you have rejected a tactical technique that can save your life, or alternatively, your psychic manhood needs some taming.

Or you have a lawyer on retainer:cool:

Your CPL isnt for pride. Its to defend your life.

WildithinkiseeadumbscenariocomingAlaska ™©2002-2011

glockcompact
February 19, 2011, 11:13 PM
In the Marine Corps we always practiced 2 to the chest 1 to the head. For the same reason previous post have listed. A CNS shot means an immediate stop. And after all, that's what we all want is an immediate stop. However I think there's good argument for 1 to the groin or I would say a low center mass shot instead. To be honest I've never thought about 1 low center mass. My argument would be to go to low center mass for the same reason football players are tought to go for the midsection when they tackle. I've been lucky enough to have never been in combat but I've had enough training to know that combat is very fluid and changes very fast. When moving and changing direction your midsection is the last thing to move. It's also the slowest part of the body to change directions. Becuase of this if a head shot is just out of range I think a midsection shot I definately an inteligent thought. I can see a good argument to go for a low center mass shot. I still believe center mass should be your first attempt though.

Nnobby45
February 20, 2011, 12:16 AM
But most of us here are armed citizens. As a consequence thereof, it is, IMHO, your moral duty to never pop that round off until you have cowered begged pleaded run hide and do everything in your power to avoid pulling that trigger.



Hey, have you been hitting the sauce up there in the mid night sun, or land when it's dark at noon? Or are you off your meds?

A man said one of the reasons he got the CCW was so he wouldn't end up begging for his life, and you question his manhood then lecture him on his moral obligation (based on your standard) to run away, risk getting shot in the back, throw down his gun, beg, and avoid pulling the trigger--- and then hope Bubba spares his life.

People arm themselves so they aren't in that position in the first place.

I know I do.:cool:

Wildalaska
February 20, 2011, 01:48 AM
to run away, risk getting shot in the back, throw down his gun, beg, and avoid pulling the trigger--- and then hope Bubba spares his life.

You want to tell me where I said that?:cool: I think I was clear enough.

Perhaps you may want to reread this

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=362200&highlight=moral


WildarewenotmenAlaska ™©2002-2011

Trigger Finger
February 20, 2011, 01:52 AM
Yes, that's what I'm going to do. Beg for my life, beg for wife and loved ones lives!!

Me and my family would look like a covey of quail being spooked by a hunting dog. Everyone run for your lives, in different directions. Let the bad guy choose who he wants to robb, molest and kill.

Sorry pal, not on my watch!! I will take the fight to him or them if my family is in danger. Gun or no gun and the courts can bite me! :mad:

Wildalaska
February 20, 2011, 01:55 AM
I think you guys need a reality check on deadly force.

WildthreadtimeAlaska ™©2002-2011

Eagle0711
February 20, 2011, 04:12 AM
Well maybe where you all live BGs don't wear BP proof, but they do around here. Iv'e seen it and read about it.

I've thought about this, and have so practiced this. Take all the time needed as fast as it takes to hit him between the eyes. He can shoot at me quickly, but I'm sticking to my strategy.

kaylorinhi
February 20, 2011, 07:49 AM
When attempting to stop a threat, you must use lethal force, if deadly force has been applied, as best as you are trained, than continue to employ until it works. If you has fired a pair to the chest and the threat does not stop his movement, you should be moving to cover, preferably backward, to build a reactionary gap. A drugged up meth-head "may" not stop his movement until something is incapacitated. This is where the pelvic-gertal shot comes into play. It is a viable means of stopping the forward movement of an attacker but as stated before,"IT IS NOT AN ALWAYS THING" nor does it replace the the need to train hard and train right.

I am not a lawyer, CC instructor nor am I a EMT or MD/DO.

Failure to stop drills are taught many ways by many juristictions. You need to learn what your local laws state. Any one who says that the Pelvicgertal shot is not taught or should not be taught might have a bit of tunnel vision. remember that the low shot is not the first round or rounds employed just another way to stop the threat from closing the gap and getting with-in arms distance.

bravo124
February 20, 2011, 09:33 AM
So you're at 15 yards and he's wearing body armor. Two to the chest didn't work. What's your next course of action? You're really going to try a head shot on a moving target at 15 yards? you said it yourself. 7 yards and in. No problem. The pelvic girdle shot is just an option. Although he still may be a stationary threat Trigger, he's not moving around anymore and it gives you options. Like Trio said, it's a tactic that can be utilized. Two to the body, one to the head is always taught first. There is no right and wrong. On the east coast we train with shields constantly. I took classes instructed by LAPD Swat and they weren't crazy about the amount of shield work that we do. NYPD ESU swears by them. It's just different schools of thought. East coast. West coast. Out here we teach the pelvic girdle as an option that's all. The bottom line is that we win the gunfight.

smince
February 20, 2011, 09:42 AM
you should be moving to cover, preferably backward,No, I wasn't designed to move backward.

I'll be moving offline at an angle from the target, and firing the entire time until he is no longer a threat.

COM, head, pelvis, multiple rounds or magazines, even beating him with an empty gun-whatever works to stop him/them.

gearhounds
February 20, 2011, 10:00 AM
+1 center of mass for initial shots. Most of the delicate, fragile stuff is here; lots of blood vessels, blood resevoirs. Under stress, it will be the easiest target to hit, and bad guys almost never wear body armor. The head is a very difficult target to hit with a sidearm unless it's sitting still, especially during an adrenaline dump. The pelvic girdle is a very effective target area, as it is large, full of blood and nerves, and supports mobility. Even someone hopped up on anything you care to mention cannot stand or move effectively with no physical support.

jon_in_wv
February 20, 2011, 10:05 AM
The head is a pretty small and mobile target to hit. I believe in aiming center mass working down to the pelvic region and to keep firing until the threat stops. People have been now to take multiple bullet hits to the torso without effect but a broken pelvis, hop socket, or other support structure shouild immobilize him. I do train for headshots too for the "Hostage situation" but I think if the person was attacking me a headshot would be very, very difficult.

cambeul41
February 20, 2011, 11:21 AM
If someone is coming in my front or back door, a head shot is going to be in line with a front or back neighbor's living-room. A shot to the pelvis, if it misses, is most likely going into turf.

My home defense first shots are going to be aimed at the pelvis.

therewolf
February 20, 2011, 03:38 PM
Interesting idea...

So, how about one with the baseball bat to the chest,

then maybe mix it up, one to the groin to try to keep the target from

collapsing before shot #3 back on mass...

Erik
February 20, 2011, 07:30 PM
Failure drills come in one of two varieties, shifting your fire up or down. Don't over think it.

cambeul41
February 20, 2011, 07:50 PM
If someone is coming in my front or back door, a head shot is going to be in line with a front or back neighbor's living-room. A shot to the pelvis, if it misses, is most likely going into turf.

My home defense first shots are going to be aimed at the pelvis.

Interesting idea...

So, how about one with the baseball bat to the chest,

I do keep a short staff by the front door, but there is no room to swing a bat. I would be limited to thrusts and "butt strokes."

In Michigan, one may shoot as the BG is in the process of breaking in. I intend to shoot before they have complete access. :)

Nnobby45
February 20, 2011, 08:10 PM
You want to tell me where I said that? I think I was clear enough.



What you were saying is that when protecting one's loved ones, one should act in accordance with your personal morality---even though one would otherwise be acting within the law.

Your statement was a condemnation and severe admonishment of those who see things differently---especially when it comes to having the proper mindset necessary to win the fight and protect themselves and loved ones.

Yes, I'm for retreating and avoiding the problem--just not voluntarily placing myself in the context of being a criminal's intellectual and physical inferior (in his eyes) to meet standards as strict as yours. So strict that even the justice system doesn't impose them. :cool:

I imagine that being in a potentially lethal situation would be problematic enough without someone, at the bureaucratic level, placing the added burden of retreat, begging, and "everything possible" (by bureaucrat standards) upon an already highly stressed victim. Don't you? ;)

JayCee
February 20, 2011, 08:48 PM
You guys are a bunch of bad dudes! No “BG” is going to stand a chance against y’all. Do you think it might even be fun to see what your beloved 357/40/45 would do to a “BG”? Personally, I don’t even want to contemplate where I would shoot another human being if I was forced to do so. And I suspect that if any of you do have the supreme misfortune of having to defend yourself with lethal force, you won’t stand there coolly and surgically aiming your shots as if you were James Bond. So what exactly is the point of this thread? If you want to shoot “BGs”, as WildAlaska said, go join the Army.

therewolf
February 20, 2011, 10:18 PM
If ya don't want to find out, don't roust me.

I probably won't want to waste my range ammo on some BG's mangy @$$.

He'll probably wish he got shot, if I don't teach him a lesson he'll never

remember.

I don't do tired, cranky, and just got woke up well.

Glenn Bartley
February 20, 2011, 10:31 PM
Try vertical tracking next time you are at a range where you can use the technique. You start firing from the level the gun clears the holster and as long as the threat is there you continue firing as the pistol moves up to the center of mass and maybe even to the head. Then back to the chest for several shots and down to the pelvic girdle so long as the threat persists. This of course if you have that much bad guy to shoot at and if the threrat still presents itself. Of course, I would hope if you had time to get off as many shots as that would be, you would be moving and seeking cover and maybe be behind it pronto.

Ryder
February 21, 2011, 12:20 AM
Fracturing the pelvic bone is touted as a way to stop someone from advancing by collapsing their skeletal support structure. It does do that. What it won't do is prevent return fire. That's probably not a good thing :p

gearhounds
February 21, 2011, 12:28 AM
Shoot, find cover, return fire on a now much more static target.

Ryder
February 21, 2011, 12:48 AM
I doubt many carry pistols can be relied on to destroy a pelvic bone.

Aguila Blanca
February 21, 2011, 12:48 AM
So if you think a low center mass shot is worthless, are only head shots effective then because that's the only place you can cause "massive CNS damage?" Why bother with 2 to the chest then? I acknowledged in my original post that a high CNS shot is the most effective way of stopping somebody right now. But I don't think that is necessarily the first place you should aim. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I'm saying in general, a low center mass shot is a good spot to hit somebody.
This thread reminds me why I don;t spend any time in this part of the site. You opened up this thread asking for opinions, and then every opinion that doesn't agree with your new-found wisdom you argue with.
That's a great way to stifle discussion, but not a good way to learn anything.

Bernieb90
February 21, 2011, 02:27 AM
Dr. Fackler has written the following discussion on shots to the pelvis:


Quote:
Fackler ML: "Shots to the Pelvic Area ". Wound Ballistics Review. 4(1):13; 1999.

“I welcome the chance to refute the belief that the pelvic area is a reasonable target during a gunfight. I can find no evidence or valid rationale for intentionally targeting the pelvic area in a gunfight. The reasons against, however, are many. They include:

-- From the belt line to the top of the head, the areas most likely to rapidly incapacitate the person hit are concentrated in or near the midline. In the pelvis, however, the blood vessels are located to each side, having diverged from the midline, as the aorta and inferior vena cava divide at about the level of the navel. Additionally, the target that, when struck, is the most likely to cause rapid and reliable incapacitation, the spinal cord located in the midline of the abdomen, thorax and neck), ends well above the navel and is not a target in the pelvis.
-- The pelvic branches of the aorta and inferior vena cava are more difficult to hit than their parent vessels -- they are smaller targets, and they diverge laterally from the midline (getting farther from it as they descend). Even if hit, each carry far less blood than the larger vessels from which they originated. Thus, even if one of these branches in the pelvis is hit, incapacitation from blood loss must necessarily be slower than from a major vessel hit higher up in the torso.
-- Other than soft tissue structures not essential to continuing the gunfight (loops of bowel, bladder) the most likely thing to be struck by shots to the pelvis would be bone. The ilium is a large flat bone that forms most of the back wall of the pelvis. The problem is that handgun bullets that hit it would not break the bone but only make a small hole in passing through it: this would do nothing to destroy bony support of the pelvic girdle. The pelvic girdle is essentially a circle: to disrupt its structure significantly would require breaking it in two places. Only a shot that disrupted the neck or upper portion of the shaft of the femur would be likely to disrupt bony support enough to cause the person hit to fall. This is a small and highly unlikely target: the aim point to hit it would be a mystery to those without medical training — and to most of those with medical training.

The “theory” stated in the question postulates that “certain autonomic responses the body undergoes during periods of stress” causes officers to shoot low, and that apparently this is good in a gunfight because such shots cause “severe disability.” I hope that the points presented above debunk the second part of the theory. As for the “autonomic responses” that cause officers to shoot low, I am unaware of anything in the anatomy or physiology of the autonomic nervous system that would even suggest such an occurrence. Most laymen do not understand the function of the autonomic nervous system. It is simply a system whose main function is to fine tune the glands and smooth muscles (those in the walls of organs and blood vessels) of the body. During times of stress such as perceived impending danger, the autonomic nervous system diverts blood from the intestines and digestive organs to the skeletal muscles — in the so-called “fight or flight” response. The effects of this response are constantly exaggerated by laymen who lack an adequate understanding of it — most notably by gun writ-ers eager to impress their readers. Interestingly, the human body can get along quite well without major parts of the autonomic nervous system. During my professional life as a surgeon, myself and colleagues removed parts of thousands of vagus nerves (mostly in treating peptic ulcer disease) -- thus depriving the patient of the major part of the parasympathetic half of the autonomic nervous system. We also removed many ganglia from the sympathetic half of the auto-nomic nervous system, in treating such things as profusely excess sweating and various problems caused by spasm of the arteries. I am unaware of any evidence that these operations produced any significant effect on the future capacity of these patients to react appropriately in times of impending danger.

Unfortunately, the pelvis shot fallacy is common. This fallacy, along with other misinformation, is promoted constantly by at least one gun writer who is widely published in the popular gun press. Because of this, I regularly debunk this fallacy by including some of the above rationale in my presentations to law enforcement firearm instructor groups.”

Nnobby45
February 21, 2011, 04:11 AM
Unfortunately, the pelvis shot fallacy is common. This fallacy, along with other misinformation, is promoted constantly by at least one gun writer who is widely published in the popular gun press. Because of this, I regularly debunk this fallacy by including some of the above rationale in my presentations to law enforcement firearm instructor groups.”

The esteemed doctor discusses that matter as if some advocate the pelvic area as a preferred target as opposed to more vital areas.

So what if removing the vagus nerve had little effect on the future physical ability of certain patients. The question is whether a bullet would undermine the skeletal structure and cause collapse, should the pelvis need to become the target in an emergency when other vitals might not be available---like being protected by a vest. Seems to be some support for the practice, but I'd like to see some data involvong actual shootings.

While Dr. Fackler is certainly an expert on wound ballistics from the living and dead, and on medical proceedures performed on the living--- to what extent is he an expert on how fast any of his subjects were incapacitated and not capable of fighting back? Yes, I know, some would be obvious.

And finally, why do we have to look at the pelvis as some kind of magic formula to ending gunfights? Why not consider it a legitimate target if it presents itself, and just one option---even if it isn't the best one. Or is it?:cool:

Glenn Bartley
February 21, 2011, 09:45 AM
Here is one of the reasons that head and pelvic girdle and even upper thigh shots are taken:

http://www.secondchance.com/products/deepcover.asp(sorry, I will not copy the pic to here and violate copyright)

Do you see why you might need to shoot other than center of mass. You probably would not see it if in a gun battle with a guy wearing the same because it would likely be concealed. So if you fire shots to the chest and get them dead center, well let's just say you can remove the word dead from that phrase because it probably is not going to happen, especially if the armor plate is inside its pocket. So what next - shot(s) to the head or to the pelvis? The head is one of the most difficult body parts to hit - even on a stationary human target - but it is a legitimate target if chest shots don't do it.

The pelvis, as opposed to what doctor Fackler has to say is also a legitimate target and maybe better than the head. It is an easier target to hit than the head. Doubt it then using an upturned thumb, held out at arms length, as a sight, watch a person just walking and hold on his head for several seconds. Then do likewise but sight in on the pelvis. WARNING - DANGER ALERT - WARNING - DO NOT TRY THIS USING A GUN OF ANY SORT, NOT A REAL ONE NOT A TOY ONE NOR ANYTHING THAT COULD BE MISTAKEN FOR A GUN AND DO NOT MAKE YOUR HAND LOOK LIKE A GUN BY POINTING YOUR INDEX FINGER OUT WHILE DOING THIS. ONLY DO THIS WHILE HOLDING YOUR CLOSED FIST OUT AT ARMS LENGTH WITH THE THUMB IN THE THUMBS UP POSITION. Do this with several people for the pelvis and several others for the head. Make sure when sighting, you do not move your thumb or your head - stay immobile - keep stationary. Remember you are wanting to see which body area on the other person remains sighted in for the most time - or in other words which one moves more and which less - you are not trying to see if you can hold on target but how much each area of the target is moving to see which would be easier to hold on. Now, try the same on several people who are just standing there on a street corner. Which part moves more, the head or the pelvis. If it is the head that seems to have moved less - you have either done something wrong or sighted in on folks with neck braces or fused vertebrae. Don’t do this all at once. Someone may call the cops about the weirdo on the street who is giving everyone the thumbs up signal. I have done it, looking out the window, while sitting in a café enjoying a coffee, while stopped at a traffic light from inside my car and so forth. I do it unobtrusively and if anyone notices I just stop and continue at some other place and time. Note, don’t bother doing this with images on a TV screen as the camera often moves with the actors and that totally negates the experiment.

If you shoot at the head - for the sake of discussion lets use right between the eyes as an aiming point - then miss - where does the shot go? You have only a few inches up and to either side and beyond that the shot goes wild. You have a lot of body to hit below the head. On the other hand, if you shoot at the pelvis/groin area, aiming center of it, you have somewhat more left to right target than on a head shot and you have target above and below the pelvic area - the torso above the pelvis where it is not protected by the vest or belt and the legs below (and in the case of a male, the family jewels). Now, someone please explain to me, how is it that what we were told of what Dr. Fackler says makes any sense. Remember, we have already eliminated the reasoning of Dr. Fackler, who essentially said to shoot center mass, because our guy is wearing body armor that has been effective by making our torso shots essentially ineffective.

You see, the possibly very medically knowledgeable doctor speaks only to anatomy and the effects of a bullet on the body. He totally leaves out the whole idea that an opponent could be wearing body armor, heavy layered clothing over the chest, be bobbing and swaying making the head a much more difficult target to hit opposed to the pelvis, and on and on. He is suffering from a case of 'tunnel vision' maybe because he is so stuck up in his own ego in as much as he believes he knows best, as to fail to realize that yes there are other considerations besides which area is the best to hit for best effect when shooting at a naked man who is absolutely stationary. He is looking at it from the clinical point of view, from the safety and security of an operating room or morgue or lab, not from a practical viewpoint of actually being in a gunfight. He has examined people and dead bodies after the fact of them having been shot badly enough for them to get to him. How many bad guys do you think he has examined that had been wearing body armor when they were shot and then got away because the shots were effectively stopped by the armor and because the good guy who was shooting back only kept aiming center mass? For anyone to say that pelvic shots are never reasonable just does not have a clue as to what can happen in a real shooting situation.

All the best,
Glenn B

Glenn Bartley
February 21, 2011, 10:09 AM
The one con, as I see it, is that the absolute best way to somebody advancing is a brain/high CNS shot. You hit that and the response is indeed immediate. I'm a hunter and I have seen this first hand.

This is not a given. First of all, the brain is protected by the skull. Hitting the head does not necessarily mean penetration. Many shots to the head have resulted in the bullet being deflected or simply stopped by the skull. Secondly, a bullet entering the brain does not necessarily mean incapacitation. This may not happen often but has been known to happen. One example: I worked in an hospital ER in NYC years ago, when a gunshot victim was brought into the ER. I was the square badge who had to keep an eye on him. Despite having been shot in the head with what they figured was a 38 to 45 caliber bullet, the man was awake for almost the whole time I was in the ER (at least almost all of an 8 hour shift). The x-rays showed the bullet had broken into two pieces, one went almost straight back into his brain lodging in either the frontal or parietal lobe, the other went down toward the cerebellum, lodging either in it or the temporal lobe. I saw his x-rays. I saw the wound in his forehead. This man was awake, alert, mobile, in severe pain, and begging for someone to do something to help him. They stabilized him and were waiting for a surgeon who would operate, he was expected to arrive in about 12 to 16 hours. I do not remember if he survived but can tell you that a shot to pretty much center mass of the brain, that then took two paths inside the brain, did not kill or immobilize him. There are other well recorded cases of severe brain trauma that did not immobilize or kill the victim.

Even if the head shot was a given for incapacitation, as I said in my previous post, the head is not an easy target to hit.

All the best,
Glenn B

Glenn Bartley
February 21, 2011, 10:23 AM
Folks who advocate such silliness know nothing about our justice system to go with their ignorance of morality and physiology
???Why not spell out just what you mean???

smince
February 21, 2011, 12:23 PM
Based on this discussion on another site (a few years ago), and from both LEO and Doc's who have operated on, witnessed, or did the actual shooting here is some info:

1. Anatomical - the pelvis is a ring structure. To make it unstable it must be broken in two places not just one. The pelvis is a large bone not easily broken by pistols. The spots where the pelvis may be broken by small arms are the two narrow spots that can be designated by the pocket line on a pair of jeans.

2. If it's the only shot you have, take it. A hole in the pelvic region of your opponent certainly beats no holes at all. Be prepared to make follow up shots, cause that shot isn't likely to do it alone. While a GSW to the pelvis is a bad thing. It isn't something likely to immediately stop your attacker from continuing to try to kill you, especially if you shot him with a pistol.

3. If you can hit a major vessel or a nerve then you may see some more immediate incapacitation, however, most of these structures are deep and well protected (the femoral artery is a bit deeper than you might think). The legs/thighs and buttocks are thick and dense and will often serve as further barriers. Remember, even bleeding out of a major pelvic artery can and will take some time. This is not reliable as an injury that will result in instant/quick incapacitation.

Wildalaska
February 21, 2011, 02:33 PM
???Why not spell out just what you mean???

Its not my job to think for folks.

WildyoushouldbeabletofigureouttheprosandconsofmystatementAlaska ™©2002-2011

Stevie-Ray
February 21, 2011, 02:39 PM
Then I guess you have rejected a tactical technique that can save your life, or alternatively, your psychic manhood needs some taming.My manhood? You're the one sick of testosterone. soundslikeyouvegotplentyofestrogen:rolleyes:

Or you have a lawyer on retainerGot a good one, thanks.

Your CPL isnt for pride. Its to defend your life.Exactly, and if I pull a gun to defend my life, I don't expect to preface it with cowering and begging and pleading for my life. If you have to do this in Alaska, I'm so glad I live in Michigan. Let me know how that works out for you. But then again, I guess you wouldn't be able to.

Wildalaska
February 21, 2011, 03:04 PM
Exactly, and if I pull a gun to defend my life, I don't expect to preface it with cowering and begging and pleading for my life.

So are you saying you would rather shoot than excersize every means to avoid a shoot?

WildihopeyoudontthinkimstupidenoughtoignoreallthescenarioswherethecoweringandbeggingisimpossibleAlaska ™©2002-2011

Glenn Bartley
February 21, 2011, 03:29 PM
WildAlaska,

Let me say it: Yes I would rather shoot in many situations of which I can think rather than try everything else to avoid shooting You see, by trying everything else, I give my attacker more time to kill me. You would have to be an absolute fool to actually do otherwise in some life threatening situations where the immediacy of the threat meant your time was up. In addition, you would quite possibly be extremely foolish and wind up dead by trying options other than deadly force to combat the threat of deadly force. If someone here does not see the practicality in that which I just wrote then that person or persons has very little going in the way of knowledge about criminals who have committed homicide or seriously injured people. If you do not see the morality in it (because you can bet your bottom dollar it is absolutely moral to defend yourself from the threat of death or bodily harm rather than to try EVERYTHING else and thus wind up dead because you were too worried about being moral) then it is your life to live and to lose. Please, do not expect everyone else to be like you and do not judge their morality based upon your own. Now please get off of your holier than thou high horse and talk the tactics that are the subject of this thread and stop it with your own personal brand of morality.

IambeginningtothinktheanswerquitepossiblycouldbeyesbaseduponyourpostsherebutIwouldhopeotherwise.

With all due respect,
Glenn B

Capt Charlie
February 21, 2011, 03:33 PM
And, this one's a wrap.

I expected this to be a hot topic from the beginning, but I'd hoped the issue could be debated without things getting personal. So much for hoping.

Closed, for incivility and way too much chest thumping.