View Single Post
Old November 15, 2010, 12:10 PM   #1
Ruark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2010
Posts: 227
Overemphasis on "killing"

A little background: I'm 60 years old, been shooting and reloading for 45 years - pistol, rifle, handgun, for skeet, bench rest, IPSC, Steel Challenge. Have been an NRA Certified Instructor in Home Firearm Safety, Personal Protection and Pistol. I have carried a CCW many times for personal protection when I was a witness in a murder case, or for security when traveling. I have never actually fired or brandished a firearm in self defense.

This forum has some excellent discussions that should be required reading for anyone interested in the topic of using a firearm in self-defense. One of the most important subjects is dealing with the "aftermath" of a self-defense shooting, when you're standing over a dead body with a smoking gun in your hand. Justified or not, in many cases that can be a life changing event, possible life-destroying as well.

Once you get on the 10 o'clock news and the front page, you can lose your friends, your job, your neighbors won't let their kids play with your kids, all kinds of things can happen. Beyond that, you may also have to deal with up to $80,000+ in legal costs if you're the target of a Wrongful Death lawsuit or criminal charge (depending on where you live). As was once said, "you can shoot somebody in self defense if you fear for your life, but by the time it's all over, you might wish you had let him kill you instead."

My point: I've often disagreed with the TOTAL focus on KILLING an attacker. The standard position seems to be that you'll either do nothing, or kill him. Obviously, there are some situations where killing is the only effective response: he's pointing a gun at you, he's thrusting a knife inches from your body, etc.

The shooting ability of the victim might come into play, say if it's an panicked, inexperienced shooter with a CCW pistol with a 2" barrel he's fired once since he bought it. Such persons usually have no choice but to point at the center mass and blast away.

Otherwise, I can see a case for a different, but equally effective, response: shooting the attacker in the foot or knee. Say somebody's following you across a dark parking lot. You tell them to stop and they keep coming. Or somebody threatens you with a knife, but they're still a few feet away.

Speaking for myself, I'm not going to kill him. I'm going to display my weapon (probably a compact 9mm+P or a 4" .357 revolver) and if he doesn't desist instantly, I'm going to shoot him in the FOOT. 99% of the time, a 2-inch hole blown through his foot will deter him from continuing. In the rare case that it doesn't, blowing a hole through the other foot will.

If the foot, for whatever reason, isn't a reliable target, say if he's moving quickly or is further away, hit the knee instead. If you can continue attacking me with a .357 HP through your knee, please raise your hand. And I'm not even going to discuss a .357 through both knees.

Even a 9mm or .357 could be excessive. In most cases you could do just as well with a .380 or even a (gasp... is he serious???) a .22.

The point is, for a reasonably practiced shooter, these are viable targets and are completely effective, and most importantly, they COMPLETELY avoid the horrific "aftermath" situation mentioned above. In fact, depending on the location and circumstances, you could probably just get in your car and drive off and leave him there, and he'll be fine. He won't die, he won't bleed to death. And you very likely won't be charged with anything. What's he going to do, call the police? "Uh, I was robbing this guy, see, and..."

Of course, it might be prudent to report it, again depending on circumstances. That could mean anything from going to the police station and filing a complete report, to stopping by a pay phone and making a quick anonymous 911 call. To avoid thread hijacking, I'm starting a second thread on this - "Report a wounded attacker?"

In the unlikely event that you DID end up in a courtroom, you're looking much, MUCH better. You used a small firearm, not a Dirty Harry cannon. You just shot him in the foot to stop him, instead of automatically killing him, even though (depending on location and circumstances) you legally could have. And so on.

I just wanted to bring this up, as we so frequently act like the ONLY way to use a firearm in self defense is to blow the sucker all over the landscape. I beg to differ.

- Ruark
Ruark is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.06789 seconds with 8 queries