Shooting to injure: No such thing.

[TStick]

In New York State, Gov. Patterson called for cops to shoot to wound. I think they just laughed at him.

Yeah, um.

As much as I would like to change the mind of someone who has never fired a gun in their own defense or the defense of someone else; (but will tell other people how to do so) while at the same time enjoying the protection of multiple guns at nearly all times, no legally blind people are invited to my challenge.

Not even at night

 

[TStick]

Okay, my apologies to both of you. You have a point.

Meh, this is the internet and this is a long thread, no apologies necessary.

I would even allow you a differing opinion if you so chose, but you'd be wrong

 

[shouldazagged]

I would even allow you a differing opinion if you so chose, but you'd be wrong

AGAIN? I've already been wrong twice--1960 and 1974. My first two marriages, but that's another story.

 

[Delos]

Justice was often entertaining and educational

In old west bar-room shootouts it was not unusual for a bystander to get shot by accident. It was not unheard of that the shootouts “winner” got hung promptly.

One unfortunate gunfighter I read about was tied to a windmill, after a bystander was killed. Basically he got to spend his last drunken minutes or hours screaming while spinning in the wind.

At one time Justice was more entertaining and educational.

 

[Jeffersonwasright]

In the words of the ancient sage, no good deed goes unpunished. There will be a price of some kind any time you are forced to shoot someone.

But as I posted much earlier, and wiser people than I have confirmed, you shoot to end the threat. And correct me if I'm wrong, but did you issue a challenge earlier to anyone to shoot for anything but center mass when push comes to feces in the fan? May have been someone else. If so, I apologize.

It wasn't me, but I do think center of mass is where most folks will focus in the heat of battle. I'm no different, and I don't want to be misunderstood on this point. As I said earlier, given the choice, I would prefer a shot that downs the BG but doesn't kill. When it happens though, and the trigger has to be pulled, I think it's damn hard not to shoot at center of mass. I also think most people realize as they're pulling the trigger that they're shooting to kill, that the BG has little chance of surviving, and regardless of whether they *want* him to die, that's a likely outcome. Calling this "ending the threat" is like saying "drive the car" when someone asks you how to shift. That phrase not only obscures the specifics of the action, it disconnects intent from an outcome that is predictable to the shooter. That's a good thing for lawyers, but it doesn't facilitate a clear discussion of the topic.

 

[donniedee]

Put simple IF YOU SHOOT TO WOUND???? You allow the bad guy a chance to kill you and your family THAT'S WHY if you need to use your weapon finish it just common sence period NOT ONE PD TEACHES THIS SHOOT TO WOUND **** those who think this it right need to carry paintball guns geeez

 

[Sebago Son]

Austin.

Sometimes there's a price to pay for doing the right thing.

Oh My Gawd... another one.

Tell that to Achmed when he comes to steal your sheep and blow up your outhouse.

"Anyone worth shooting, is worth shooting twice"

 

[cmort666]

Let's be clear on this point - concern for potential litigation does not justify unnecessary killing. If it is possible to protect yourself without doing so, that's the moral obligation.

Fear of harm to someone unlawfully threatening you with the immediate and credible use of deadly force does not justify the pretense that shooting somebody is EVER anything BUT deadly force.

You shoot to stop the threat. The most likely means of doing that in a timely fashion ALL have a good likelihood of resulting in death. I couldn't care less.

I want my unlawful deadly force assailant to stop BEING my unlawful deadly force assailant. I'm going to do WHATEVER it takes to accomplish that. If it kills him, that's ok by me. If it doesn't kill him, that's ok by me too. I just want him to stop trying to maim or murder me.

If you don't want to get shot (or stabbed, beaten, burned, choked, etc.) to death, don't do things which would cause a reasonable person to believe that they NEED to use deadly force against you.

 

[cmort666]

Calling this "ending the threat" is like saying "drive the car" when someone asks you how to shift. That phrase not only obscures the specifics of the action, it disconnects intent from an outcome that is predictable to the shooter.

I don't CARE if my unlawful deadly force assailant lives or dies. I merely want him to stop BEING my unlawful deadly force assailant.

I'm going to shoot him center of mass (and maybe in the head, if I'm in a "Mozambiqueish" mood) until he's no longer an immediate threat to me. If that kills him, no harm, no foul. If it doesn't kill him, no harm no foul. If I foolishly do something that allows him to continue his efforts to maim or murder me, BIG foul.

If you don't want to get shot, don't do things which make it imperative TO shoot you. How hard is that to grasp?

 

[shouldazagged]

This thread seems to be becoming rather philosophical. My philosophy is very simple: what does it take to survive? Get the hell out of the situation? First choice, always. Pepper spray? Don't have it at the moment, but it's an option in some situations, like a taser. Knock some thug who's shooting at me down with my car? Certainly, if I can't reverse out of his field of fire. Gunfire, center mass or anywhere I can hit him? Hell yes, if that's what it takes. A cavalry saber? RPG? Whatever will get me safely home.

I'll worry about litigation and niceties of technique when I've saved my elderly behind.

 

[szuppo]

I shoot to stop the threat. Whether or not that results in injury or death does not matter.

 

[cmort666]

I shoot to stop the threat. Whether or not that results in injury or death does not matter.

Some would have us believe that ones overriding concern should be to avoid harm to someone trying to maim or murder them.

I'm not one of them, as apparently neither are you.

 

[mc5aw]

Call me selfish, but an attacker's health and well being are not concerns when said attacker is committing a violent act upon myself, an act that requires me to defend myself with deadly force.

 

[The Big D]

Really? So show up at your next city/county council meeting and be sure you tell everyone you want the LEO's in your jurisdiction to "kill" people.

For a fact, I know of no LEO training academy that teaches what you believe is correct. Be sure to visit the facility for your jurisdiction and tell them they're wrong. They will likely be thrilled to know you consider them a "disgrace."

Be safe.

I think it's the folks using smarmy lawyerese like "stop the threat" who are a disgrace. It's nothing but a legal deflection, and it has no business in a real discussion of this issue.

 

[Delos]

Layers of security, think past dopy movies, don't do what I do

I only speak for myself - this is getting a bit one sided.

When I first tried shooting rabbits unsupervised, first with pump pellet rifle then .22 rimfire, every first shot was a wound. And I was shooting the basic center of target (nobody said “center of mass” back in the 1950’s). (And a .22 rimfire is a big bullet compared to the size of a rabbit).

Basically we failed to notice that Rabbits are maybe 70 percent guts. And rabbits have really small brains and hearts. (shotguns with right size shot is prudent).

I never hunted ducks, but I remember thinking those little shotgun birdshot pellets were probably just stunning them. Probably the fall that killed them? (wrong).

And I never saw Hoppalong Cassidy or Roy Rodgers even draw blood. Even Gene Autry would rather punch someone out than shoot. And he had the most uncoordinated punches anyone ever saw. (Really, there was grown men wearing guns and usually fighting with their fists?).

Then along came Marshall Dillon that always shot second and always won the gunfight. It was his job to confront the bad guy and draw second?

Even later when shoulder shots were fired by TV police. No early TV show ever showed blood spurting from that major artery (a few inches from heart to shoulder). No TV show mentioned blood clot strokes or heart attacks a week or so after minor injuries.

It took years of predatory lawyers to bring the real world into our focus. Cameras on police cars has helped. Then the internet has helped.

The Vietnam war era children had the beginning of very violent cartoons suddenly passing as kids entertainment. No more spanking the bullies in school. But that is another story for another site.

And once a week Perry Mason proved the prosecutor was holding the wrong guy in jail, and trying to send him to prison. Same with Angela Lansbury‘s show, Also another story.
(Most prisons must be bulging with innocent people) - (sarcasm)
………………………………....

All that said….. My first Karate classes taught the karate yell to distract your attacker. And if I had a drunk or whatever kicking down my door I still reserve the right to shoot a warning shot into my empty cement basement to distract him or influence him to change his mind. (Easier on my old vocal cords, and maybe easier than cleaning up blood and hiring a lawyer) (Still a free country, and I want to see if he will sober up and run. I want to at least see him in my muzzle flash, and see if shooting to wound is a possibility. And in the old days when neck locks were legal in prisons and police departments, some of the most violent people got taken down with neck locks. I reserve my right to use any martial arts punch, kick, arm lock, or neck lock that I am foolish enough to try.

I do not want any policeman to shoot a warning shot in any crowded city or shoot to wound. They constantly go to unfamiliar situations and have their own rules.

On my turf I can choose my less than lethal rules or free fire zone. (When houses began building closer to one of my prisons they designated “free fire zones” for gun tower guards. And other directions never to shoot. Or so I heard. Usually the older more senior men got the gun towers).

I no longer bench press over 300 pounds but my brain is locked in. I worked the main line at a time all inmates (except isolation) carried their own key to their own cell and we carried a master key. They went to their jobs or school (academic or vocational) and we searched and watched them as they left shop or factory jobs where they had anything that could be used as a weapon back in the yard or housing units. We watched them play sports on weekends. Sometimes preventing one who was chasing another with a baseball bat or weight lifting equipment.

Like your basic construction worker mentality we might choose to rough up someone invading our personal space at our homes. The odds are it will never happen and if it does the odds are I will find a way to win. If not it is my mistake to make, and my wife will have time to lock and load. Or better stated, if deadly force is legal, and I can find a way to use less, it is my right to be foolish if I choose.

The closest thing to my bedside is a nightstick and flashlight. Further away my revolver. Anyone breaking in my door will hopefully be coming into total darkness on my turf. If they are coming in fast and loud, breaking their way in, I hope my revolver is in my hand. It is what I use best.

I do not normally talk about my security system, like my plastic dog with a motion detector inside its mouth. Put it anywhere and if batteries are fine it barks when legs move past it. Someone shining a flashlight down on it, when barking, might give me time to soften his head. Someone that just came in a window might go back out it. Even a soft bark can be better than nothing?

I have been planning for years to put a motion sensor light “inside” my door to garage. In your own house you should have layers of security, not just locks. But no residential crime in my town in years. Everyone owns guns and no drug addicts stealing to support their habit.

With all the oil well workers coming here for jobs crime is going up in some areas. Soon it will effect us. And we will rise to whatever level needed.

 

[cmort666]

Like your basic construction worker mentality we might choose to rough up someone invading our personal space at our homes.

I once saw an episode of "Cold Case Files" where a guy and his wife heard somebody break in at night.

The husband picked up a baseball bat and left his wife in the bedroom. The home invader promptly stabbed the husband to death, raped the wife and set the house of fire.

The wife survived and for quite a while was treated quite badly by the police, who treated her as the primary suspect.

After something like ten years, the killer/rapist/arsonist was found, already in prison if I recall.

At the end of the show, the wife said she wished that she'd been killed the night her husband was murdered.

I'm not "roughing" ANYBODY up. You get told to leave. If you don't take the hint, you get shot. You keep getting shot until you're no longer a threat.

Those are your choices, leave or get shot.

As the knight in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" said, "Choose wisely."

 

[Delos]

When less is more

And I support your decision completely.

The other end of the discussion involves having a gun in the first place.

……………There are many thorny bushes in that field………………………

Once, after retirement, I was working contract security and was once sent to some large private school playground that was having some kind of flea market type sales to finance some future event (memory vague). Mostly donated clothing and toys perhaps? I was to assist their “in house” security guard that only worked for them, therefore had not taken any classes or tests for the job. He normally did regular patrols at intervals through the night and his only instructions were to call police if necessary.

After the nights once a year events were over, he began asking me the requirements of gun carry and best gun to carry.
I made a big mistake by first pointing out the houses around him and mentioning that errant bullets Could penetrate windows, sometimes walls. He immediately began shaking his head no and saying that is not acceptable or some-such. Obviously the conversation involving guns was over. I should have begun mentioning the smallest guns and worked my way up. A big part of his job was a very large old Church and he was obviously a very good member in good standing. Any small chance of harm to others living nearby was unspeakable.

If there was ever a good candidate for a .25 or .32 perhaps with safety slugs, he was standing right in front of me. Vagrant street people with mental challenges often look for dark doorways to camp in, or windows to break in, and can angrily explode when approached. The smallest handgun is better than no gun, and I had just lost a potential new gun person. Hopefully he at least got some pepper spray. I should have at least stopped by on another night with some reading material.

 

[mc5aw]

Having a firearm makes the equation a lot easier. But if I was the victim of a violent attack or home invasion, my first choice to stop the threat (with lethal force as applicable) would remain the same if I was armed with a spear, war club, pocket knife, cross bow, or ballpein hammer. As a matter of fact, it would hold true if I was unarmed and fighting hand-to-hand for my life.

The commitment to employ appropriate lethal force in a defensive situation is a universal sentiment, not mitigated by the availability of defensive tools or weaponry. He who hesitates is lost ... and a lost life is a big price to pay for hesitating.

 

[cmort666]

The commitment to employ appropriate lethal force in a defensive situation is a universal sentiment, not mitigated by the availability of defensive tools or weaponry. He who hesitates is lost ... and a lost life is a big price to pay for hesitating.

I can't carry a gun when I visit my mother in Illinois.

Option one is ALWAYS running over and or dragging an assailant with my vehicle.

That's followed by spraying them with gasoline while in a gas station, beating them in the face with a swung belt buckle and when all else fails, gouging their eyes out with my thumbs.

I haven't been back for a couple of years, but when I go, my religious cousin always wants to wander around the north side of Chicago. Those days are pretty much done for me, given the SHARP increase in random violent robberies. My greatest fear is that she would try to protect an assailant FROM me. If you attack me in the street, NOTHING is off the table when it comes to a response... except submission. NO plan I EVER have will involve trusting in the good judgment and basic human decency of a strongarm robber. Bring your A game because my presumption is ALWAYS that you don't intend to leave witnesses.

 

[The Big D]

Wow!

Simply wow!

Your lawyer (whom you repeatedly reference) will love this.

I can't carry a gun when I visit my mother in Illinois.

Option one is ALWAYS running over and or dragging an assailant with my vehicle.

That's followed by spraying them with gasoline while in a gas station, beating them in the face with a swung belt buckle and when all else fails, gouging their eyes out with my thumbs.

I haven't been back for a couple of years, but when I go, my religious cousin always wants to wander around the north side of Chicago. Those days are pretty much done for me, given the SHARP increase in random violent robberies. My greatest fear is that she would try to protect an assailant FROM me. If you attack me in the street, NOTHING is off the table when it comes to a response... except submission. NO plan I EVER have will involve trusting in the good judgment and basic human decency of a strongarm robber. Bring your A game because my presumption is ALWAYS that you don't intend to leave witnesses.