Fox News Video Story: Shoot to kill vs shoot to wound?
- Thread starter Karnivore
- Start date
walkin' trails
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,366
- Reaction score
- 807
I thought the piece originated in CA where it's hard to find any positive news coverage of firearms or their use in self defense. CA is home to Hollywood, where the shoot-to-wound myth was at least echoed profusely if not invented there. Nevertheless, it's not easy to find nonbiased news coverage of firearms an their lawful use anywhere. Even in more conservative areas, seldom are the producers and reporters products of the local area anymore. I thought it was a decent work.
There are schools of thought that say to stay off of cover, so the reporter keeping the muzzle back a few inches is tactically sound. Probably no better feedback than splinters in your face to let you know you're jerking the trigger (as long as everyone is wearing proper eye protection).
With "shall issue" becoming a court-mandated reality in CA, hopefully there will be more positive, factual news pieces on shooting originating in the Golden State and change some attitudes.
There are schools of thought that say to stay off of cover, so the reporter keeping the muzzle back a few inches is tactically sound. Probably no better feedback than splinters in your face to let you know you're jerking the trigger (as long as everyone is wearing proper eye protection).
With "shall issue" becoming a court-mandated reality in CA, hopefully there will be more positive, factual news pieces on shooting originating in the Golden State and change some attitudes.
"shall issue" might become a court mandated reality... but with the way it's going with the slew of new proposed anti-gun, anti-ammo and anti-magazine legislation, we just might not have anything to use by the time those CCW permits are being issued (said with tongue implanted in cheek, sort of).
I very much doubt CA will produce any positive nor factual reporting anytime soon, as the San Bernardino shooting incident has become the rallying point for the anti's here, and especially for Lt. Governor Gavin Newsome and the 2016 election year ballot initiatives he's pushing for, and our AG, Kamala Harris who is running for the US Senate, and was among a group of DA's that filed an amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller lawsuit, arguing that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to own firearms.
That tragic incident will over shadowing anything positive for the immediate future, and then some. Previous mass shooting incidents that have taken place here... the Stockton school yard shootings of 1989, the 101 California St. shootings of 1993... both occurred over 20 years ago and still being referenced and used as examples of why we need more gun control in CA.
Not a surprise at all that the "shoot to wound" mentality is alive and well here... probably growing legs again and why it being reported.
Shoot to wound?
The majority of people are used to firing at stationary targets under no duress at all, and are going to be danged lucky in a charged and dynamic SD situation to even hit their intended target, let alone being able to deliberately direct fire accurate enough to distinguish between wounding or killing.
I very much doubt CA will produce any positive nor factual reporting anytime soon, as the San Bernardino shooting incident has become the rallying point for the anti's here, and especially for Lt. Governor Gavin Newsome and the 2016 election year ballot initiatives he's pushing for, and our AG, Kamala Harris who is running for the US Senate, and was among a group of DA's that filed an amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller lawsuit, arguing that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to own firearms.
That tragic incident will over shadowing anything positive for the immediate future, and then some. Previous mass shooting incidents that have taken place here... the Stockton school yard shootings of 1989, the 101 California St. shootings of 1993... both occurred over 20 years ago and still being referenced and used as examples of why we need more gun control in CA.
Not a surprise at all that the "shoot to wound" mentality is alive and well here... probably growing legs again and why it being reported.
Shoot to wound?
The majority of people are used to firing at stationary targets under no duress at all, and are going to be danged lucky in a charged and dynamic SD situation to even hit their intended target, let alone being able to deliberately direct fire accurate enough to distinguish between wounding or killing.
I sometimes get a "shoot to wound" or the opposite "shoot between the eyes" student in a defense class, and we have a convincer drill for that.
With the loaded gun either holstered or lying on the bench, I start a silhouette target on the mover (bouncing and swaying) toward the shooter, and they are supposed to hit their selected area. Some empty the gun and hit nothing.
Moe Mentum
Member
I'm sorry your honor, but every time I aimed for his hand with the knife, the bullets just kept going into his chest.....
Last edited:
Shooting with intent to kill is a crime. Even when the cops do it. I would think the only time it's legal to shoot with the intent to kill is if you've been selected as a firing squad member after a guilty verdict and the resulting appeals.
Cops shoot with the intent to stop the threat. The fact that death often results after being shot twice in the chest and once in the head is strictly incidental to the intent. Even if he DID shoot someone in the arm or hand or hip girdle on purpose, it would be wise for an officer to still say he or she was aiming for their 5 ring. Wouldn't look good if they died and they testified that they were only trying to wound them.
Cops shoot with the intent to stop the threat. The fact that death often results after being shot twice in the chest and once in the head is strictly incidental to the intent. Even if he DID shoot someone in the arm or hand or hip girdle on purpose, it would be wise for an officer to still say he or she was aiming for their 5 ring. Wouldn't look good if they died and they testified that they were only trying to wound them.
I was trained to shoot center mass to stop the illegal act, what ever it was. I later, as a trainer, trained LE officers in the same manner. You have to determine if there is a threat of great bodily harm or death to yourself or others. That's it in a nut shell. Hopefully, very few of us will ever have to make that decision - to date, I haven't and hope I don't.
I remember a few years ago a TV report on a thug in New Orleans who came at the police with a gun, they shot him dead. One of his relatives was on the scene complaining that all the cops had to do was shoot the gun out of his hand, why did they have to kill him! Been watching too many westerns I guess.
Steve W
Steve W
BigBill
Absent Comrade
If there's an active shooter on a rampage I would take him out asap. A head shot, kill shot what ever it takes to stop it. I hope it never happens.
But if the bullets are flying it has to stop.
But if the bullets are flying it has to stop.
Inusuit
Member
From my experience shooting USPSA. If you stick the muzzle through the opening in the barricade, recoil may cause the slide to strike the top of the opening with a resulting malfunction. I was taught to always shoot with the firearm outside the opening.
It doesn't amaze me at all. Most "journalists" are actually that ignorant. A large percentage of the remainder are dishonest, as are many of the first group.
Targets Guy
US Veteran
I wonder how she would do with her eyes open?
You're a more courageous man than me. Unless I had me a pretty clear position of advantage and no better choices, I think I'd choose the FEAR option. Usin' a compact auto or snubbie to fight a guy with a rifle does not rate particularly high on my bucket list.
Then again, I make a point of not spending much time in posted killzones.
Then again, I make a point of not spending much time in posted killzones.
Dvan34
Member
It may sound good to 'shoot (center mass) on a silhouette target but raising the sights to cover the central nervous system in the center chest area is more effective. The shock of the round going there can immediately stop an attacker. Often a shot in the center mass, abdominal area does not stop the attacker.
Shoot to kill or wound? When students ask that question my standard
answer is neither. You shoot to stop the threat. You are not a good
enough shot to choose to kill or wound, especially under those kind of
conditions.
answer is neither. You shoot to stop the threat. You are not a good
enough shot to choose to kill or wound, especially under those kind of
conditions.
cmort666
Member
"Shoot to wound" = "shoot to miss and hit bystanders".
Sorry, I have neither a union representing me nor a bottomless pot of other people's money to pay off civil settlements and judgments.
In Ohio, if it's a justified shooting, my assailant and his mutant family can sue me all day and every day... they just can't COLLECT. Good luck finding a lawyer who'll work on a contingent basis in order to collect 30% of $0.00.
On the other hand, if I play John Wayne, try to shoot a gun out of somebody's hand (who's actually trying to kill ME), miss and hit somebody's toddler, I OWN that, with no limits.
The only kind of shooting of another person I EVER plan to engage in is shooting to stop the threat, and shooting until the threat is STOPPED. I don't care if that kills him or if he lives another seventy five years, just so long as he stops doing whatever he was doing that justified the use of deadly force against him in the first place.
As to dimwits and morons who think that their violent felon friends and relatives ought to have a "safe working environment" in which to rob, rape and murder. I just laugh at them, and am not at all bashful about making light of it when they come to a violent end while trying to harm innocent people. Don't want to get shot? Don't do things which make it a good idea for other people to shoot you.
Sorry, I have neither a union representing me nor a bottomless pot of other people's money to pay off civil settlements and judgments.
In Ohio, if it's a justified shooting, my assailant and his mutant family can sue me all day and every day... they just can't COLLECT. Good luck finding a lawyer who'll work on a contingent basis in order to collect 30% of $0.00.
On the other hand, if I play John Wayne, try to shoot a gun out of somebody's hand (who's actually trying to kill ME), miss and hit somebody's toddler, I OWN that, with no limits.
The only kind of shooting of another person I EVER plan to engage in is shooting to stop the threat, and shooting until the threat is STOPPED. I don't care if that kills him or if he lives another seventy five years, just so long as he stops doing whatever he was doing that justified the use of deadly force against him in the first place.
As to dimwits and morons who think that their violent felon friends and relatives ought to have a "safe working environment" in which to rob, rape and murder. I just laugh at them, and am not at all bashful about making light of it when they come to a violent end while trying to harm innocent people. Don't want to get shot? Don't do things which make it a good idea for other people to shoot you.
BigBill
Absent Comrade
Shoot to kill no lawsuit the victim/bad guy is dead.
Shoot to wound lawsuit the victum is alive. If he's paralyzed its even worse.
Shoot to wound lawsuit the victum is alive. If he's paralyzed its even worse.
BigBill
Absent Comrade
Practice, practice, practice or don't ccw carry.
Similar threads
- Locked
