Shoot to stop vs. Shoot to kill

Playboypenguin · November 6, 2009, 03:48 PM

Most of my threads have a certain amount of a "tongue-in-cheek" intent to them, but this is completely serious. This thread has the potential to go very wrong but it also has the potential to be quite thought provoking. I am hoping it is a frank discussion that we can all be adult and honest about. I feel being able to understand and discuss this subject is a very big part of being competent to carry a deadly weapon. It has been discussed before but it is a topic that needs repeating from time to time.

This topic was brought up in another thread today and I thought it deserved it's own thread.

When it comes to shooting an attacker, our intent should always be "shoot to stop" and not "shoot to kill." You want to stop the action which is presenting a clear and present danger to yourself, to loved ones, or to innocent parties. You never want to make it personal enough to be intending to kill the assailant. Once you cross that line you seriously undermine your own position and competence. You become a bad guy yourself to some degree.

That being said, I can be adult enough to admit there would be times when "shoot to kill" would probably be my intent alongside stopping the threat. I could very easily see myself crossing that line if someone was intentionally trying to seriously injure or kill a loved one or a child. I would like to think I could keep emotion out of the situation and only be intending to stop the present threat, but I am afraid I am only human and could easily allow myself to be overtaken by anger and fear in such a situation.

I do not think that makes me, or anyone else like me, unfit to carry a gun. I just think it makes us human. I do not think someone needs to be perfect to be armed. I think they just have to be aware of the reality of being armed with a deadly weapon and the weight/responsibility that comes with it.

Thoughts?

Tom2 · November 6, 2009, 03:54 PM

I think you will find that the consensus is shoot to stop, fully stop the threat, shoot to kill implies murderous intent, and shooting to stop may or may not be fatal. Likewise fatal wounds do not guarantee an end to your danger in time. But all this is a given, understood by most, so you are beating a dead horse, not a wounded one.

**Frank Ettin** · November 6, 2009, 03:57 PM

For me, it's always a question of shooting to stop. My goal is always to protect myself, a loved one, or an innocent third party from harm. I want myself, my loved, or the innocent to survive. That's what matters.

I think anger is an important element of the response, but in a different way. It can he the anger, the sense that what is happening is unacceptable and you will not let it happen, that may help you overcome you own fears. The anger may well impel you to act in the face of danger.

Playboypenguin · November 6, 2009, 04:01 PM

Quote:

But all this is a given, understood by most, so you are beating a dead horse, not a wounded one.

I disagree completely. By your logic it is beating a dead horse by telling people to always check the chamber before disassembling a firearm...or telling them to never put your finger on the trigger unless you plan on shooting. Some thing need to be said again and again.

Plus, it only takes a few minutes on some forums to find that a great deal of people do not understand the basic principle of shoot to stop. In fact you still find people that think you should always fire your gun if you draw it.

Dragon55 · November 6, 2009, 04:14 PM

I wouldn't be shooting to kill but it's almost certain that would be the outcome. COM with either of the defensive firearms I would be using would likely result in death.
It would make me feel bad and I would lose sleep over it but I would definitely do what it took to remove a threat from my loved ones.

It's a weird thing but several years ago I was getting the form signed in my county from yet another handgun. (Our sheriff had to sign off back then) Sheriff wasn't there and the chief deputy had to sign. I swear he told me if I had to 'shoot some - - - - to make sure he was dead.... the paperwork was easier.' At the time this kind of floored me coming from a guy that had been n law enforcement for 20 years or so with several different sheriffs.

NWPilgrim · November 6, 2009, 04:18 PM

I don't think ther e is any difference when you START to shoot. The difference comes into play onyl about when to stop shooting.

If you purely wanted to avoid killing and only stop, then you would shoot for the gun hand, shoot the pelvis, etc.

In practical terms, the only way to increase chance of a quick stop is to shoot to kill, that is center mass (heart/lung) or CNS. Nobody would recommend you try for a wounding shot.

Now if the perp is killed, OR survives the shot but stops the attack, then you have achieved a stop. Murderous intent would only come into play if you see the threat has been eliminated, the perp is still alive, and you continue shooting until he is stone cold dead.

Someone may be able to point out a nuance I am missing, but to me the initial shot will be to do my best to kill and I will continue shooting until the perp stops. If he is still alive I won't try to inflict more injury.

fastforty · November 6, 2009, 04:22 PM

We as citizens are not judge, jury or executioner unless called upon by official agencies. Therefore, we are limited in our right to "shoot to stop" an act of violence that is already taking place or is imminent. If the action results in the death of the assailant, well, it has the added benefit of saving a lot of work for a lot of people, not to mention preventing the high likelihood of future crimes against other innocents. To continue to fire after the threat is stopped is murder. If the bad guys didn't have the right to fair treatment and legal action, neither would we.

eddyb74 · November 6, 2009, 04:23 PM

You should have made this a poll.

If my attacker has a firearm and I shoot to stop and fail, all I have done is given him the opportunity to continue his attack. I will be aiming center mass and will keep shooting till he stops.

I don't remember who it was that said, dead people can't testify against you in court, but it seems resonable to me.

Harry Callahan · November 6, 2009, 04:26 PM

Isn't it illegal to continue shooting once the threat has been stopped? If the BG goes down I don't think you can walk up and finish him off. For me, I go for center of mass and let the chips fall where they may. If the threat doesn't stop after one shot then repeat as needed.

Brian Pfleuger · November 6, 2009, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWPilgrim

I don't think there is any difference when you START to shoot. The difference comes into play only about when to stop shooting.

That's an interesting point.

There are also times when the difference between "stop" and "kill" is purely academic, such as "failure to stop" scenarios. We can very well say that our intent was not to kill the BG that we shot in the head, but we also know that the odds are astronomical for a fatality if we are using any major defensive caliber.

I agree with PBP that there may well be scenarios wherein we take (or continue to take) actions that may cross the line from "stop" to "kill". Considering that such actions would put us on the wrong side of not just the law but also the ethical and moral standards of most of us, I think that discussing the implications and possibilities may keep us from taking such actions should, God forbid, we ever be in the situation to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddyb74

I don't remember who it was that said, dead people can't testify against you in court, but it seems resonable to me.

It may sound reasonable, but it is not. In fact, it is in a way the point (I think) of this thread. Dead men may not talk, but they most certainly do tell a story.

Nnobby45 · November 6, 2009, 05:04 PM

Quote:

That being said, I can be adult enough to admit there would be times when "shoot to kill" would probably be my intent alongside stopping the threat.

The kill or stop part is what goes on in your head. I don't think there's much distinction with re: to the act of shooting in defense.

How many people think that, when you're faced with death at the hands of an attacker, you're really going to take the time to decide whether you want to stop or kill--- and then use the same tactics either way?

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Quote:

If you purely wanted to avoid killing and only stop, then you would shoot for the gun hand, shoot the pelvis, etc.

I don't think so, Pilgrim. Shooting for the gun hand is a Hollywood invention. The pelvis contains major blood vessels and the lower spine.

You can HOPE you don't kill, but you don't make changes in your training or tactics to accomodate your mind that suddenly starts moralizing at the worst possible time.

pier-rat · November 6, 2009, 05:20 PM

I think if you want a deadly weapon get a firearm, if you want a less ten lethal weapon get some bean bag shells.

MLeake · November 6, 2009, 05:24 PM

... I recall winning a fist fight or two, and then wondering exactly what had happened. IE, under threat, I threw a KO punch a time or two, but couldn't quite remember doing it. In another instance, had a very scared guy down against a desk by his throat - this one was a friend, who'd thumped me from behind as a practical joke, and startled me when he did it; I was startled a second time when I found him down on the desk and in my grasp. (Not sure who ended up more startled, him or me, but he never did that again.)

This was also kind of like the time a vehicle near me threw a wheel, and went into a spin. I tried to avoid hitting that car as it swerved over at me on three wheels, and we both went off the left shoulder into the median. Luckily, neither car hit the other, and mine wasn't even damaged. Somehow, though, when all motion had stopped (and it was a lot of motion, as both cars had spun side by side off Interstate 10), I found that I had downshifted from 5th all the way to 2nd, and my emergency brake was pulled up. I don't remember taking either action.

Or like the time I nearly got run caught between two cars a the merge of Hwy 101 and I-405 in LA, on my Harley. Braked, accelerated, nearly clipped a Jersey barricade, and started to high-side the rear tire. Thought for sure I was dead. Next thing I knew, I was under control again, and on the I-405 on-ramp. No idea how I recovered the bike - none at all.

IE, sometimes, under stress or threat, reflexes kicked in and overrode conscious action. This effect didn't last long, a few seconds at most, but it was quite real, and luckily it turned out well for me.

I have more conscious memories of things that went wrong, and corrective actions that I took, when problems arose on aircraft. I suspect that is because of the hours and hours of intense training I received from the Navy, and later on from part 121 and 135 carriers, for dealing with such things. I suspect that having the higher degree of training to fall back on really helped me stay in conscious control of what I was doing, even as trained muscle memory kicked in.

This makes me wonder if I should put more time and effort into FoF training, to make it more likely that if I ever have to use a gun for SD, that I am in more conscious control of what I'm doing, and less automated.

Muscle memory is a great thing, but muscle memory coupled with conscious awareness is better.

EDIT: How this pertains to the thread.

I find it fairly unlikely that most of us, under serious threat to life and limb, will have that much conscious internal debate over our motivations until the smoke has settled. I find it likely that in my case in particular, and probably most cases in general, that dedicated training ahead of time is more likely to result in having more conscious self-control under duress.

scottaschultz · November 6, 2009, 05:26 PM

How many stories do you want the police to hear, one or two?

Scott

TailGator · November 6, 2009, 05:31 PM

I think of the difference in intent as similar to what goes on in hospice care. The intent of hospice is to maintain quality of life, in part by using pain medications. All drugs have side effects, and the side effects of powerful pain medications, given at the doses needed to control the pain of some conditions, can include effects that shorten life, like suppressed breathing reflexes and very low blood pressure. But those side effects become acceptable in terminal illnesses because the alternative is to live out the life in pain, even if the life is measured in hours or days.

If I ever have to fire in defense of myself or others, I will fire for COM because that is the best way to stop an assailant. If the assailant dies, I will consider it an undesirable but acceptable side effect of the assailant's choice to put others in danger. It is not my intent to kill, but I can accept the side effect if it is the only way to protect innocents. Kind of a very rapid hospice care for BGs. But anger, unmanaged to the extent that it induces an actual intent to kill, produces the kind of result we saw in a pharmacy in Oklahoma City.

Hook686 · November 6, 2009, 06:48 PM

Beware the ID.

Essentially I think I do not think I am a good enough shot to try to kill someone. If I am in fear, and I mean fear, of my life I would be shooting, given the opportunity, to stop the threat that generated the fear. I seriously doubt I would be cool enough to intellectually analyze my options and render a decision regarding whether to kill, or not. It seems to me it would be strictly an animalistic reaction at that point. I would be fighting to survive.

Then I suppose it would be the decision of 12 of my fellow citizens that would determine if I had decided to kill, and whether, or not, it was justifiable.

Ryder · November 6, 2009, 06:59 PM

IMO it's just politically correct semantics. A word game that allows society to pile onto your misfortune. First some guy is trying to kill you then you have society trying to steal your freedom because you were forced into defending yourself?

The question you need to ask yourself is do you feel like taking the chance that somebody will still kill you after you put a bullet in them? I can tell you from decades of hunting experience that things are not always easily stopped with bullets. It requires a huge amount of determination on your part. Betting your life on a bullet is a bad gamble. They are not magic. Often times you can't even tell if a bullet was a hit or a miss. It's like you are shooting blanks, there is no reaction from the target! Put your faith in yourself... Prevail.

When you are a fraction of a second away from instant death second guessing what society thinks about you won't even cross your mind. I guarantee. When the prosecutor asks why you drilled a hole in somebody's brainpan I'd suggest saying it was just an unlucky shot because you didn't bother to aim

It is their game.

Dragon55 · November 6, 2009, 07:03 PM

"When the prosecutor asks why you drilled a hole in somebody's brainpan ......"

Yeah.... and one may have to answer 2 hours of questions about something that took a second and a half to do.... and maybe less than that to decide to do.

CWPinSC · November 6, 2009, 07:17 PM

My CWP Instructor told us if someone comes at you with a gun, you must assume they intend to kill you. Ron White says, about Texas, "If you kill us, we will kill you back."

Shoot to stop...we usually train to shoot COM. That's gonna involve the heart and lungs as primary targets. The aorta as secondary. In that situation, shooting to stop may be the same thing as shooting to kill. The result of the shot will be death. Let's be honest with ourselves - death is a sure stop.

A head shot assumes shooting to kill, I'd think, so we don't practice head shots.

How do we train? One shot, observe the effect? Double tap, observe the effect? Empty the mag? Recently, a local police officer fired one shot to the "upper chest" of a suspect at close range with a .40 S&W. The suspect was down immediately, and died the next day in the hospital. The suspect was instantly incapacitated, there was no need to shoot again. But, was that a "kill" shot? Only the police officer knows for sure.

I believe, if my family was threatened, I'd be MUCH more likely to "shoot to make sure". If that involves the BG dying, as the Russian fighter Drago said, "If he dies he dies."

**Frank Ettin** · November 6, 2009, 07:19 PM

Let's not forget the Oklahoma pharmacist about to be tired for murder (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...36&postcount=2). The DA certainly thinks he can prove the guy finished the BG off after the threat had ended.

MLeake · November 6, 2009, 07:22 PM

... I can understand the rationale; protection against a claim that you were shooting to kill.

However, given the fact that some recent, high-vis home invasions and murders have involved felons wearing body armor, I think you're depriving yourself of a skill that may become necessary someday.

My take is, if a double tap to COM doesn't do the trick, the next shot probably SHOULD be to the head, because something isn't working with the COM shots (could be armor, could be drug or otherwise induced elevated pain threshold, don't know, don't care - if he's enough of a threat that I need to shoot him, then I need to stop him ASAP).

My other take is, in the event of multiple assailants, if a head shot is feasible, it will work faster and with less ammo expenditure.

Again, killing isn't the idea, and stopping is. But the main reason I prefer COM as the initial target over the head has a lot less to do with legal issues after the fact, and a lot more to do with tactical issues at the moment (easier target).

YMMV

rdmallory · November 6, 2009, 07:23 PM

If I feel I am in danger I will shoot center mass until the threat goes down.
If it takes an empty mag or two reloads I will stop when I see he is no longer standing or holding the firearm.

Now if I caught him in the act of causing life threatening harm or molesting one of my family it will be more difficult to determine when he is no longer a threat.

Doug

Ryder · November 6, 2009, 07:44 PM

Quote:

A head shot assumes shooting to kill, I'd think, so we don't practice head shots.

Our state certified CCW instructors had us performing a Mozambique drill (2 to the chest and one to the head). Some of these people borrowed guns to participate. I was amazed

Parapliers · November 6, 2009, 07:44 PM

Shoot to kill till they stop.

huchahuchax · November 6, 2009, 08:02 PM

I may be over simplifying, but my shooting philosophy is extend, press (I think I just stole that from Rob Pincus). Eye level is just where my gun always seems to go, and that is where I'm most likely to shoot. That is the total extent of how I think about shooting people. That is with handguns of course. Using a rifle is a total different story. I would not know how to answer the question in that situation. It seems like you would have to really concentrate on NOT killing someone with a rifle, but aiming at non vital organs seems sadistic to me.

November 6, 2009, 03:48 PM	#1
Playboypenguin Junior member Join Date: February 27, 2006 Location: Great Pacific Northwest Posts: 11,515	Shoot to stop vs. Shoot to kill Most of my threads have a certain amount of a "tongue-in-cheek" intent to them, but this is completely serious. This thread has the potential to go very wrong but it also has the potential to be quite thought provoking. I am hoping it is a frank discussion that we can all be adult and honest about. I feel being able to understand and discuss this subject is a very big part of being competent to carry a deadly weapon. It has been discussed before but it is a topic that needs repeating from time to time. This topic was brought up in another thread today and I thought it deserved it's own thread. When it comes to shooting an attacker, our intent should always be "shoot to stop" and not "shoot to kill." You want to stop the action which is presenting a clear and present danger to yourself, to loved ones, or to innocent parties. You never want to make it personal enough to be intending to kill the assailant. Once you cross that line you seriously undermine your own position and competence. You become a bad guy yourself to some degree. That being said, I can be adult enough to admit there would be times when "shoot to kill" would probably be my intent alongside stopping the threat. I could very easily see myself crossing that line if someone was intentionally trying to seriously injure or kill a loved one or a child. I would like to think I could keep emotion out of the situation and only be intending to stop the present threat, but I am afraid I am only human and could easily allow myself to be overtaken by anger and fear in such a situation. I do not think that makes me, or anyone else like me, unfit to carry a gun. I just think it makes us human. I do not think someone needs to be perfect to be armed. I think they just have to be aware of the reality of being armed with a deadly weapon and the weight/responsibility that comes with it. Thoughts?

November 6, 2009, 03:54 PM	#2
Tom2 Senior Member Join Date: June 23, 2004 Location: Ohio Posts: 5,676	I think you will find that the consensus is shoot to stop, fully stop the threat, shoot to kill implies murderous intent, and shooting to stop may or may not be fatal. Likewise fatal wounds do not guarantee an end to your danger in time. But all this is a given, understood by most, so you are beating a dead horse, not a wounded one. __________________ Your gun is like your nose, it is just wrong for someone else to pick it for you!

November 6, 2009, 04:14 PM	#5
Dragon55 Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2009 Location: East Tennessee Posts: 811	Inside my home... I wouldn't be shooting to kill but it's almost certain that would be the outcome. COM with either of the defensive firearms I would be using would likely result in death. It would make me feel bad and I would lose sleep over it but I would definitely do what it took to remove a threat from my loved ones. It's a weird thing but several years ago I was getting the form signed in my county from yet another handgun. (Our sheriff had to sign off back then) Sheriff wasn't there and the chief deputy had to sign. I swear he told me if I had to 'shoot some - - - - to make sure he was dead.... the paperwork was easier.' At the time this kind of floored me coming from a guy that had been n law enforcement for 20 years or so with several different sheriffs. __________________ sailing ... A way to spend lots of money and go real S L O W

November 6, 2009, 04:18 PM	#6
NWPilgrim Senior Member Join Date: September 29, 2008 Location: Oregon Posts: 2,346	I don't think ther e is any difference when you START to shoot. The difference comes into play onyl about when to stop shooting. If you purely wanted to avoid killing and only stop, then you would shoot for the gun hand, shoot the pelvis, etc. In practical terms, the only way to increase chance of a quick stop is to shoot to kill, that is center mass (heart/lung) or CNS. Nobody would recommend you try for a wounding shot. Now if the perp is killed, OR survives the shot but stops the attack, then you have achieved a stop. Murderous intent would only come into play if you see the threat has been eliminated, the perp is still alive, and you continue shooting until he is stone cold dead. Someone may be able to point out a nuance I am missing, but to me the initial shot will be to do my best to kill and I will continue shooting until the perp stops. If he is still alive I won't try to inflict more injury. __________________ "The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition." - James Madison

November 6, 2009, 04:22 PM	#7
fastforty Senior Member Join Date: December 28, 1999 Location: In a kornfield in kalifornia Posts: 1,161	We as citizens are not judge, jury or executioner unless called upon by official agencies. Therefore, we are limited in our right to "shoot to stop" an act of violence that is already taking place or is imminent. If the action results in the death of the assailant, well, it has the added benefit of saving a lot of work for a lot of people, not to mention preventing the high likelihood of future crimes against other innocents. To continue to fire after the threat is stopped is murder. If the bad guys didn't have the right to fair treatment and legal action, neither would we. __________________ When Banjos are outlawed, only Outlaws will have Banjos The Bible is my lawbook. I turn the other cheek when applicable, and spend the rest of my days resisting evil at every front, until I have breathed my last breath.

November 6, 2009, 03:57 PM	#3
Frank Ettin Staff Join Date: November 23, 2005 Location: California - San Francisco Posts: 9,471	For me, it's always a question of shooting to stop. My goal is always to protect myself, a loved one, or an innocent third party from harm. I want myself, my loved, or the innocent to survive. That's what matters. I think anger is an important element of the response, but in a different way. It can he the anger, the sense that what is happening is unacceptable and you will not let it happen, that may help you overcome you own fears. The anger may well impel you to act in the face of danger.

November 6, 2009, 04:23 PM	#8
eddyb74 Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2008 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 222	You should have made this a poll. If my attacker has a firearm and I shoot to stop and fail, all I have done is given him the opportunity to continue his attack. I will be aiming center mass and will keep shooting till he stops. I don't remember who it was that said, dead people can't testify against you in court, but it seems resonable to me.

November 6, 2009, 04:26 PM	#9
Harry Callahan Senior Member Join Date: January 1, 2006 Location: Chicago suburbs Posts: 832	Isn't it illegal to continue shooting once the threat has been stopped? If the BG goes down I don't think you can walk up and finish him off. For me, I go for center of mass and let the chips fall where they may. If the threat doesn't stop after one shot then repeat as needed. __________________ "Ah ah. I know what you're thinkin'. Did he fire 6 shots or only 5? To tell you the truth in all this excitement I've kind of lost track myself. But with this being a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off... you've got to ask yourself a question. Do I feel lucky? WELL DO YA, PUNK?!!!"- Harry Callahan(Dirty Harry)

November 6, 2009, 05:20 PM	#12
pier-rat Member Join Date: September 8, 2009 Posts: 40	I think if you want a deadly weapon get a firearm, if you want a less ten lethal weapon get some bean bag shells.

November 6, 2009, 05:24 PM	#13
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	Based on experiences in my younger days... ... I recall winning a fist fight or two, and then wondering exactly what had happened. IE, under threat, I threw a KO punch a time or two, but couldn't quite remember doing it. In another instance, had a very scared guy down against a desk by his throat - this one was a friend, who'd thumped me from behind as a practical joke, and startled me when he did it; I was startled a second time when I found him down on the desk and in my grasp. (Not sure who ended up more startled, him or me, but he never did that again.) This was also kind of like the time a vehicle near me threw a wheel, and went into a spin. I tried to avoid hitting that car as it swerved over at me on three wheels, and we both went off the left shoulder into the median. Luckily, neither car hit the other, and mine wasn't even damaged. Somehow, though, when all motion had stopped (and it was a lot of motion, as both cars had spun side by side off Interstate 10), I found that I had downshifted from 5th all the way to 2nd, and my emergency brake was pulled up. I don't remember taking either action. Or like the time I nearly got run caught between two cars a the merge of Hwy 101 and I-405 in LA, on my Harley. Braked, accelerated, nearly clipped a Jersey barricade, and started to high-side the rear tire. Thought for sure I was dead. Next thing I knew, I was under control again, and on the I-405 on-ramp. No idea how I recovered the bike - none at all. IE, sometimes, under stress or threat, reflexes kicked in and overrode conscious action. This effect didn't last long, a few seconds at most, but it was quite real, and luckily it turned out well for me. I have more conscious memories of things that went wrong, and corrective actions that I took, when problems arose on aircraft. I suspect that is because of the hours and hours of intense training I received from the Navy, and later on from part 121 and 135 carriers, for dealing with such things. I suspect that having the higher degree of training to fall back on really helped me stay in conscious control of what I was doing, even as trained muscle memory kicked in. This makes me wonder if I should put more time and effort into FoF training, to make it more likely that if I ever have to use a gun for SD, that I am in more conscious control of what I'm doing, and less automated. Muscle memory is a great thing, but muscle memory coupled with conscious awareness is better. EDIT: How this pertains to the thread. I find it fairly unlikely that most of us, under serious threat to life and limb, will have that much conscious internal debate over our motivations until the smoke has settled. I find it likely that in my case in particular, and probably most cases in general, that dedicated training ahead of time is more likely to result in having more conscious self-control under duress. Last edited by MLeake; November 6, 2009 at 05:38 PM.

November 6, 2009, 05:26 PM	#14
scottaschultz Senior Member Join Date: February 27, 2009 Location: Missouri Posts: 392	How many stories do you want the police to hear, one or two? Scott __________________ "I don't like repeat offenders, I like dead offenders!" Ted Nugent

November 6, 2009, 05:31 PM	#15
TailGator Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 3,787	I think of the difference in intent as similar to what goes on in hospice care. The intent of hospice is to maintain quality of life, in part by using pain medications. All drugs have side effects, and the side effects of powerful pain medications, given at the doses needed to control the pain of some conditions, can include effects that shorten life, like suppressed breathing reflexes and very low blood pressure. But those side effects become acceptable in terminal illnesses because the alternative is to live out the life in pain, even if the life is measured in hours or days. If I ever have to fire in defense of myself or others, I will fire for COM because that is the best way to stop an assailant. If the assailant dies, I will consider it an undesirable but acceptable side effect of the assailant's choice to put others in danger. It is not my intent to kill, but I can accept the side effect if it is the only way to protect innocents. Kind of a very rapid hospice care for BGs. But anger, unmanaged to the extent that it induces an actual intent to kill, produces the kind of result we saw in a pharmacy in Oklahoma City.

November 6, 2009, 06:48 PM	#16
Hook686 Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2005 Location: USA The Great State of California Posts: 2,090	Beware the ID. Essentially I think I do not think I am a good enough shot to try to kill someone. If I am in fear, and I mean fear, of my life I would be shooting, given the opportunity, to stop the threat that generated the fear. I seriously doubt I would be cool enough to intellectually analyze my options and render a decision regarding whether to kill, or not. It seems to me it would be strictly an animalistic reaction at that point. I would be fighting to survive. Then I suppose it would be the decision of 12 of my fellow citizens that would determine if I had decided to kill, and whether, or not, it was justifiable. __________________ Hook686 When the number of people in institutions reaches 51%, we change sides.

November 6, 2009, 06:59 PM	#17
Ryder Senior Member Join Date: March 2, 2002 Location: Michigan Posts: 222	IMO it's just politically correct semantics. A word game that allows society to pile onto your misfortune. First some guy is trying to kill you then you have society trying to steal your freedom because you were forced into defending yourself? The question you need to ask yourself is do you feel like taking the chance that somebody will still kill you after you put a bullet in them? I can tell you from decades of hunting experience that things are not always easily stopped with bullets. It requires a huge amount of determination on your part. Betting your life on a bullet is a bad gamble. They are not magic. Often times you can't even tell if a bullet was a hit or a miss. It's like you are shooting blanks, there is no reaction from the target! Put your faith in yourself... Prevail. When you are a fraction of a second away from instant death second guessing what society thinks about you won't even cross your mind. I guarantee. When the prosecutor asks why you drilled a hole in somebody's brainpan I'd suggest saying it was just an unlucky shot because you didn't bother to aim It is their game.

November 6, 2009, 07:03 PM	#18
Dragon55 Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2009 Location: East Tennessee Posts: 811	"When the prosecutor asks why you drilled a hole in somebody's brainpan ......" Yeah.... and one may have to answer 2 hours of questions about something that took a second and a half to do.... and maybe less than that to decide to do. __________________ sailing ... A way to spend lots of money and go real S L O W

November 6, 2009, 07:17 PM	#19
CWPinSC Junior member Join Date: July 1, 2009 Posts: 863	My CWP Instructor told us if someone comes at you with a gun, you must assume they intend to kill you. Ron White says, about Texas, "If you kill us, we will kill you back." Shoot to stop...we usually train to shoot COM. That's gonna involve the heart and lungs as primary targets. The aorta as secondary. In that situation, shooting to stop may be the same thing as shooting to kill. The result of the shot will be death. Let's be honest with ourselves - death is a sure stop. A head shot assumes shooting to kill, I'd think, so we don't practice head shots. How do we train? One shot, observe the effect? Double tap, observe the effect? Empty the mag? Recently, a local police officer fired one shot to the "upper chest" of a suspect at close range with a .40 S&W. The suspect was down immediately, and died the next day in the hospital. The suspect was instantly incapacitated, there was no need to shoot again. But, was that a "kill" shot? Only the police officer knows for sure. I believe, if my family was threatened, I'd be MUCH more likely to "shoot to make sure". If that involves the BG dying, as the Russian fighter Drago said, "If he dies he dies."

November 6, 2009, 07:19 PM	#20
Frank Ettin Staff Join Date: November 23, 2005 Location: California - San Francisco Posts: 9,471	Let's not forget the Oklahoma pharmacist about to be tired for murder (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...36&postcount=2). The DA certainly thinks he can prove the guy finished the BG off after the threat had ended.

November 6, 2009, 07:22 PM	#21
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	Not practicing head shots.... ... I can understand the rationale; protection against a claim that you were shooting to kill. However, given the fact that some recent, high-vis home invasions and murders have involved felons wearing body armor, I think you're depriving yourself of a skill that may become necessary someday. My take is, if a double tap to COM doesn't do the trick, the next shot probably SHOULD be to the head, because something isn't working with the COM shots (could be armor, could be drug or otherwise induced elevated pain threshold, don't know, don't care - if he's enough of a threat that I need to shoot him, then I need to stop him ASAP). My other take is, in the event of multiple assailants, if a head shot is feasible, it will work faster and with less ammo expenditure. Again, killing isn't the idea, and stopping is. But the main reason I prefer COM as the initial target over the head has a lot less to do with legal issues after the fact, and a lot more to do with tactical issues at the moment (easier target). YMMV

November 6, 2009, 07:23 PM	#22
rdmallory Senior Member Join Date: February 10, 2009 Location: Deltona FL Posts: 953	If I feel I am in danger I will shoot center mass until the threat goes down. If it takes an empty mag or two reloads I will stop when I see he is no longer standing or holding the firearm. Now if I caught him in the act of causing life threatening harm or molesting one of my family it will be more difficult to determine when he is no longer a threat. Doug

November 6, 2009, 07:44 PM	#24
Parapliers Junior member Join Date: June 10, 2009 Location: Indiana Posts: 98	COM same same STK Shoot to kill till they stop.

November 6, 2009, 08:02 PM	#25
huchahuchax Senior Member Join Date: April 14, 2007 Posts: 298	I may be over simplifying, but my shooting philosophy is extend, press (I think I just stole that from Rob Pincus). Eye level is just where my gun always seems to go, and that is where I'm most likely to shoot. That is the total extent of how I think about shooting people. That is with handguns of course. Using a rifle is a total different story. I would not know how to answer the question in that situation. It seems like you would have to really concentrate on NOT killing someone with a rifle, but aiming at non vital organs seems sadistic to me.