Would you shoot to kill?

[Nicksfix]

Just to clear up something as far as when or when not to shoot.
Note : this applies to us who have a CCP.

The following document is from the USCCA (United States Concealed Carry Association). There are 7 things you must know before drawing your gun. It's a lengthy read ... but well worth the time.

Read this

 

[lbsf1]

No matter what you would like to think you would do and want to be the "hero" by killing the bad guy, the reality is that most people physically cannot shoot to kill another human.

I was reading "men who stare at goats" which is about the wierd things the american army tried in the 70's and 80's. In there one guy (Ex US General) talks about how in Vietnam if soldiers where ambushed then if there were 100 soldiers 49 would freeze solid unable to do anything out of fear, 49 would shoot however their minds would subconciously make them miss and only 2 would actually be able to shoot accurately to kill. Out of the survivers 48 out of the 51 who did shoot (assuming they all survived) would suffer mental injury and guilt for what they did. In all the conclusion was that humans really struggle to kill other humans.

(All of those actual numbers are just rough, however give the idea of what the book said, I can't remember the actual fiqures.)

So however much you may now think you would shoot to kill please remember that the actual situation may be completely different.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Tasers are for incapacitating? You could very easily kill somebody with an electronic weapon like that. I think electronic weapons are dangerous, personally, as their effects on people aren't fully understood. Also, if a Taser will only incapacitate, why carry one at all? What if your attacker gets back up and kills you? Gun = better. Also, if you shoot first and ask questions later, you will get sued or go to prison.

You can incapacitate/kill anyone with anything. Even a well placed fork to the jugular can do the job. So does the baton, so why carry that?

So far the effects of electricity on the human body are pretty well known, hence why they are still being issued. Sure a few people here and there may get a freak cardiac failure, but most of the time they'll just spaz out and drool out of their mouths.

That's why cops sometimes carry both taser and gun for just in case lead is required.

And sure, I may get sued, but I doubt nothing much will happen to me if the guy I shot happened to have an AK47 and firing it in public.

 

[Slash]

For me it depends on the situation. If it was a few I would do my best to do so. If it was on a larger scale I'd call for back up then tail the guys and take them out.

 

[Northstar]

You shoot to STOP the threat.

Again, you don't shoot unless you are willing to kill them. You don't know for sure if they will survive a gun shot wound(and should assume they won't prior to firing).

That is what you do and that is what you say you did when the police arrive. Any other language can get you in hot water later -- the words "shoot to kill" ever come out of your mouth and they can make it look very bad for you like you were itching to kill something. "I was afraid for my life and I shot to stop the threat."

What the cops think and legal ramifications aren't a part of the topic at hand. Besides, even if you did say you were trying to kill them it wouldn't be hard to build a solid self defense case if the person had a gun. Granted even then it would depend entirely on the circumstances.

As far as actual tactics, double- or triple-tap center mass is a good plan (and practice it!).

So you plan on shooting someone multiple times in the chest/stomach and not killing them? Let me know how that works.

 

[Rykon Zero]

If I had police training, I'd shoot to kill any day, under the right circumstances. Dangerous criminal wielding a weapon at civilians? Provided all options have been exhausted or he's moving to harm someone, that person's going down then and there. I won't stand for that sort of thing.

 

[hogger129]

Again, you don't shoot unless you are willing to kill them. You don't know for sure if they will survive a gun shot wound(and should assume they won't prior to firing).



What the cops think and legal ramifications aren't a part of the topic at hand. Besides, even if you did say you were trying to kill them it wouldn't be hard to build a solid self defense case if the person had a gun. Granted even then it would depend entirely on the circumstances.



So you plan on shooting someone multiple times in the chest/stomach and not killing them? Let me know how that works.

I'm just telling you what I learned in my concealed carry classes. You shoot until the threat stops, then that's it.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Again, you don't shoot unless you are willing to kill them. You don't know for sure if they will survive a gun shot wound(and should assume they won't prior to firing).

What the cops think and legal ramifications aren't a part of the topic at hand. Besides, even if you did say you were trying to kill them it wouldn't be hard to build a solid self defense case if the person had a gun. Granted even then it would depend entirely on the circumstances.

So you plan on shooting someone multiple times in the chest/stomach and not killing them? Let me know how that works.

There are plenty of situations in which warning shots have their place; I could care less what concealed carry instructors teach (or hunting instructors for that matter...). They most likely have never even had to use their gun in a hostile situation and the classes are far from professional instruction.

You don't always know if someone has a gun. You may think they have some type of weapon; you may see what appears to be the silhouette of a weapon.

You're telling people that what they are discussing "isn't part of the topic at hand" when you and multiple people keep bringing up hunting or concealed carry classes... which "isn't part of the topic at hand." I don't see how the 'legal ramifications' of your actions in this situation are not part of the topic at hand.... Police are subject to the law just like anyone else (obviously with various privileges). Internal affairs sees to that. If you think Police officers can just fire their weapon without anyone asking "Hmmm, was that the right response?" you are mistaken.

 

[Tornado]

Again, you don't shoot unless you are willing to kill them. You don't know for sure if they will survive a gun shot wound(and should assume they won't prior to firing).

Shooting to stop and shooting to kill aren't the same thing though. When you shoot something, yes, you do do it with the understanding that it might kill them so you never do it unless you understand that; but that doesn't mean that shooting a gun is always done with the intent to kill.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Shooting to stop and shooting to kill aren't the same thing though. When you shoot something, yes, you do do it with the understanding that it might kill them so you never do it unless you understand that; but that doesn't mean that shooting a gun is always done with the intent to kill.

Absolutely.

 

[Michael88]

Why would I be interested in killing criminals? I'd shoot to stop them. Shoot until the threat is eliminated and cannot harm you or others anymore, thats the only goal.

And don't forget that about 80% of the people shot with pistols survive.

Rifles and shotguns is a different story.

 

[Super Novi]

Shoot first. Ask questions later.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

I asked my best friend who I served with in the Marines who is now a police officer in the state of Illinois whose father is a retired Marshall (need I go on? this isn't hunting class) about what type of force, specifically firing, is taught to them.

"Shoot to neutralize the threat. Not necessarily to kill but if they do so be it. Sometimes though it is necessary to penetrate the central nervous system (t-box) and shoot to kill. Hostage situations, active shooter, things of that nature."

This is from a text message so apologies for the semi-text-speak.

 

[Brutaka]

I would never want to see myself take another Human being's life away, but if I was ever in a situation that required it, I would have to do it, but at the same time I would try to stop them without killing them, hopefully it would work.

 

[parksideu14]

I would never want to see myself take another Human being's life away, but if I was ever in a situation that required it, I would have to do it, but at the same time I would try to stop them without killing them, hopefully it would work.

That's the problem why would you let someone who is potentially going to kill you and everyone near you potentially do that?

Hopefully it will work; why risk it?

 

[Nicksfix]

Shoot first. Ask questions later.

What if .....

You don't always know if someone has a gun. You may think they have some type of weapon; you may see what appears to be the silhouette of a weapon.

Shoot first, ask questions later is a very bad decision. You cap an unarmed man .... your ass is grass bud ! Have fun in the big house.

 

[JJSCHMITTY2000]

If somebody was an active shooter or had a hostage, then I would shoot to kill. If they had a gun trained on me, then I would shoot them in the thigh or in the chest die to the dangers involved. If they had a knife, I would just shoot them in the leg. If they had a baseball bat, leg. What can I say? Sometimes force is nessesary.

 

[AMCNUT]

Oh, the possibilities of how to answer this question. I suppose it depends on the situation. If an armed bad guy, for instance, breaks into my house and it's either me or him, I would be forced to use anything up to - and including - lethal force in the name of defending myself, my family, and my property. I couldn't imagine actually terminating someone's life though - if I had time to think it through I'd probably end up wavering. It'd have to be a heat of the moment thing. But then again, I can't really say as I've never been in a situation like that, or anything approaching it.

Also, as someone who's never fired a gun, my shots would probably end up way wide of the target anyways.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

Anything worth shooting once is worth shooting 7 more times.

The fact of the matter is pistol calibers are not great at "stopping". There's plenty of evidence out there where bad guys were zipped several times and although they died from these wounds, it didn't stop them from continuing to kill others. Hell, look at some of the stories of posthumous Medal of Honor winners; guys holding their guts in with one hand and killing the enemy with the other.

Stopping power, from pistols, is a game of chance. Your chances increase with larger calibers and increase with filling whatever with more holes. In the heat of the moment when your life is in danger, dump the mag.

Anyone know anyone who hunts? What does a deer weigh, 150lbs? Ask your hunting buddy about shooting a deer with a .308 and he will probably tell you stories of the deer running an additional 50-100 yards before collapsing. A .308 shot out of a rifle is a devastating round and is capable of killing anything you can find in North America, man or beast. But still, it doesn't always "stop" a 150lb deer. Now imagine your puny 9mm FMJ being tasked with stopping a 250lb bad guy who may or may not be on drugs. Yup, it's probably going to take a few holes to do the job...unless you get lucky.

Handguns, contrary to Hollywood and video games, are really hard to shoot well. The most popular handguns, Glock variants, are really POS. Terrible sights, weird grip, and one of the worst triggers you can get. Guess what; this pistol is the standard issue -or- on the approved list of every police dept in the US (has 65% market share). Getting to the point of being proficient with this gun takes a lot of practice...and training...which most police departments do not do. If you took a random sample of a police force from a large city and pitted them against a random sample of NRA members in a shooting range face-off; the cops would get smoked. Many cops don't even know what the parts are in their gun. "Highly trained" police force is a myth. [many LEOs are 'gun guys' and do a lot of training on their own with their own $$$...just like the rest of the great unwashed...and are highly effective with their weapon. These are exceptions and not the rule]

Aiming for the head, especially on a moving target, is probably not the best idea nor a reasonable request for a typical LEO. That's a recipe for shooting whatever is behind the bad guy. Further complicating matters is the training both LEOs and civilians get when taking a pistol training course; you're instructed to focus on the front sight of the gun and aim for center mass. This is sort of a lowest common denominator style of training for making most people effective with this weapon. Certain pistoleros do better focusing on the target...some guys don't even need sights to shoot an apple off your head...but these are the exception and not the rule. The rule is aim at center mass and shoot until the bad guy stops moving.

Most shootings take place within 6' or so. Past that, with adrenaline pumping and maybe too much coffee, your shots are going to be everywhere. It's why you fire more than once and why magazines have more than 3 bullets in them. You shoot until you see whatever it was that was putting your life in danger stop moving. Then...call a lawyer.

In the event, God forbid, I am forced to shoot someone in order to protect my life; the last thing going thru my mind will be legal/moral ramifications or how many times I should shoot. Shoot 1st & shoot often until the threat is eliminated.

Shooting to "wound" or "incapacitate" is a farce with a handgun. It takes too much precision and is unreasonable in a situation where instinct/reflexes/training is called upon. 100yds away with a rifle? Child's play. Rifles, IMO, are easy to shoot...especially ARs. Those are precision instruments. Handguns are a defensive tool and most handguns carried by LEOs and CCW's are not of the precision variety.