Fox News Video Story: Shoot to kill vs shoot to wound?

[Karnivore]

Just watched this story on Fox News website. The story was ok, except when they were shooting pistols at the gun range.

Maybe I am out of touch, as I have not been at a public range for many years. The thing that bothered me was the girl shooting a simi auto pistol at a target. The thing was that she was shooting through a maybe 4" x 6" hole in a piece of thick plywood and she was back about 12" to 14" from the plywood barrier.

Does this seen dangerous to anyone but me? I would think that you might get a ricochet, deflection, splatter or a bounce back if you failed to clear the cutout hole. The bullet may not go where it is intended to go.

Is this a normal setup at pistol ranges these days?

Please see the attached pics.

Thanks, Karnivore

 

[Smoke]

[ame]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_Na126MDUBE[/ame]

Looks like some type of competition

 

[SC_Mike]

She appears to be wearing eye, and hearing protection. IMHO those are the big issues.

Also, I shoot to stop the threat. Not to kill or wound.

 

[rwsmith]

People still ask....

People ask why they don't shoot people in the legs to disable them. I try to explain how unrealistic that is. I did see a SEAL demo how when he pulled his gun out of the holster, he started firing at the perps feet while raising the gun and by the time he got up to the torso he'd let off four rounds....

 

[Aticus]

I could be wrong but that looks like a local IPSC competition.

 

[okiegtrider]

Link to the article?

 

[Rastoff]

No, I don't see an issue with that at all. If she misses the hole there is no risk of ricochet. This is why they use plywood.

 

[tops]

The thing was that she was shooting through a maybe 4" x 6" hole in a piece of thick plywood and she was back about 12" to 14" from the plywood barrier.

Does this seen dangerous to anyone but me? I would think that you might get a ricochet, deflection, splatter or a bounce back if you failed to clear the cutout hole. The bullet may not go where it is intended to go.

Wood will deflect a bullet and that is why when hunting in the woods a person has to have a clear path between the gun and target.

Once when shooting sporting clays my brother hit a tree about 15 feet in front of the stand and felt a sting on his arm and saw a drop of blood. He wiped off the blood but several days later it festered up and he removed a splinter of wood. Splatter and bounce back is possible and she is a lot closer that 15 ft. Larry

 

[Arik]

Just watched this story on Fox News website. The story was ok, except when they were shooting pistols at the gun range.

Maybe I am out of touch, as I have not been at a public range for many years. The thing that bothered me was the girl shooting a simi auto pistol at a target. The thing was that she was shooting through a maybe 4" x 6" hole in a piece of thick plywood and she was back about 12" to 14" from the plywood barrier.

Does this seen dangerous to anyone but me? I would think that you might get a ricochet, deflection, splatter or a bounce back if you failed to clear the cutout hole. The bullet may not go where it is intended to go.

Is this a normal setup at pistol ranges these days?

Please see the attached pics.

Thanks, Karnivore

That's not typical range. That's a competition set up.


Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[growr]

USPSA stage

 

[MichiganScott]

If you get splatter or bounce back from a piece of plywood 12" to 14" in front of your muzzle you need a bigger gun.

 

[OKFC05]

A competitor shooting plywood soft cover does not bother me ( I have personally chewed a hole or 2 myself). but people shooting into the plastic barrels spooks me, listening to the WHIRRR as the bullet spins down inside.

 

[shawn mccarver]

The silliness never seems to go away. The idea that a person defending his life should be required to "shoot to wound" by shooting the aggressor in the arm or leg is so ridiculous on so many levels that it amazes me that any journalist would run with such a story.

With as many misses as LEOs have shooting for the torso, I would hate to see how many innocents are taken out when LEOs start intentionally shooting for the extremities.

 

[CapnMic]

That Fox news story was disturbing on a number of issues. Shoot to kill vs shoot to wound was repeated by the media reporter at least three times .. and such a straw man argument never goes well.

I know of no law tolerant of "intent to kill nor intent to wound" and the only correct response to such insistence on the part of the reporter would be that one shoots to stop the threat .. that is all. Three times she repeated the "theme" and it was only addressed correctly once ..

I'm more than a little concerned that people gloss over the "use of force" aspects of gun ownership .. instead concerning themselves with other aspects related to using a firearm. Folks, we really need to be on the same page on this issue

 

[adwjc]

Typical media ignorance or misinformation.

It is called "deadly force" for a reason; not to say that after the fact someone might claim otherwise, depending on the outcome.

 

[Retired Chief]

I once testified in court as the firearm instructor of the cop involved in a fatal shooting. When asked if I taught the officers to shoot to kill or shoot to wound, I replied that I taught the officers to shoot the offender until he quit doing whatever it was that made the officer shoot him in the first place. Might have been the long way around, but it emphasized that it was the "other guy", not the officer, that caused the "other guy" to get shot.

 

[DevilDog72]

The plywood is a non issue. The subject matter is another story. If you are shooting at the arms...legs, most likely missing, the BG is closing in on you. It seems to me the idea is to stop the threat as soon as you can and to do so you must stop the motor... center mass first. If the shots are fatal... oh well.

 

[les.b]

Well, check out this thread I just started this afternoon. This is my hometown, and at about midnight last night, three perpetrators attempted a home invasion/robbery on an 80 year old man. Please note his response, and the police statement exonerating the "old" gentleman, (I know, old is a relative term), and the comments left by those who had viewed the newscasts.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/concea...7-elderly-man-defends-self-home-invasion.html

I think he responded pretty well for an older fellow, sitting at home minding his own business. Check out the thread, and let me know what you think...

Regards, Les

 

[L-2]

I watched the news clip on Youtube, here:
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCDLkXk2LdM[/ame]

First the male interviewee demonstrated the technique, which had him placing the muzzle through the rectangular hole. Then the reporter, Hollie McKay, was recorded showing her shooting with the muzzle behind the hole. Whether she was supposed to repeat the shooting stage with the muzzle placed through the hole or not is unclear. She did a good job at shooting through the hole, a possible alternate method, as she didn't hit any wood.

These step barricades are generally not available to the public but might be used in competition, instruction, or a weapons qualification course.

The step barricades I've used didn't have the "hole" cutout and were used to shoot over or around.

 

[Moe Mentum]

I liked that, " shoot to wound" a comment like that could only come from the media.... Like its a John Wayne movie or something.

 

[hardluk1]

I'm not a good enough shot to try to wound a BG . Gona do my very best to place enough round in center of mass quickly to stop the treat and if they died !

 

[walkin' trails]

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.

 

[Gunhacker]

"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.

 

[OKFC05]

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]

I'm sorry your honor, but every time I aimed for his hand with the knife, the bullets just kept going into his chest.....

 

[RSanch111]

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.

 

[OldChief]

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.

 

[Stevens]

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

 

[BigBill]

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.

 

[Inusuit]

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.