What is your objective in a self-defense shooting?

[daddyo]

To kill or to stop the threat?

Edited May 4, 2010 by DaddyO

[Guest jackdm3]

Is this a poll of the two choices? I was just going to say "to get back safely to my wife."

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Eliminate the threat. Kill. If someone challenges you with deadly force, it's not time to worry about whether that person lives or dies. Your survival is what counts.

[Guest Bronker]

To kill or to stop the threat?

If it has come to the point I was forced to draw, and shoot in defense of mine or my family's life, I plan to completely eradicate the threat.

One less witness. -1 on bad guy.

[daddyo]

Eliminate the threat. Kill. If someone challenges you with deadly force, it's not time to worry about whether that person lives or dies. Your survival is what counts.

There's a difference in disregarding whether or not the person lives and shooting with the intent to kill. Big difference.

[daddyo]

Is this a poll of the two choices? I was just going to say "to get back safely to my wife."

That's understood. I'm talking about your immediate objective that involves your life.

[memphismason]

I don't like the way this is worded.

I shoot to stop the threat, and the threat is only stopped when it is unable to place me in fear of my life....which is when it is no longer is alive.

Did you mean to ask?:

What should your objective be in a self-defense shooting?

To Kill

To injury

Not try to be a smart arse, just saying, in my opinion, shoot to kill and shoot to stop the threat are one in the same.

[Erik88]

I have a feeling this poll is going to stay pretty much 1 sided. I don't want to kill anyone, I want to stop the threat. If the person dies as a result then so be it, however it would never be my intent.

[daddyo]

I don't like the way this is worded.

Not try to be a smart arse, just saying, in my opinion, shoot to kill and shoot to stop the threat are one in the same.

No, they are not. If your intent is to kill, then what if the BG gives up? Are you still going to shoot to kill? Doesn't his surrender qualify as stopping the threat?

[molonlabetn]

...to survive.

[lowbud]

Unless you go for the arm/leg shot. seems like your shooting to kill to me. Call it what you want.

[gunsablazin]

In self defense shooting we only shoot to stop a threat, and shooting should be a last resort used when you are in fear of your life or the life of a third party. If the perpetrator dies as result of gunshot wounds, that is too bad.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Stop the threat. Shot placement is key in stopping the threat...say...the 9 ring. I think this poll will find its way to a Memphis newspaper.

[Guest Bronker]

No, they are not.

You posted an 'opinion' poll, but you have only argued everyone's opinion since they responded to your 'opinion' poll.

What do you want to hear / read?

[Smith]

The proper terminology should be "to neutralize the threat." That is how my HCP instructor told us to answer. I think it is a good phrase. MY intent is not necessarily to kill but rather to neutralize the threat. If he runs off after the first shot - neutralized. If he dies - neutralized.

I never intend to kill someone, but I understand that if I ever shoot that is more than likely the end result.

[memphismason]

No, they are not.

Did you miss the part of my post that said "in my opinion"?

DaddyO, what is your objective when shooting someone? and please explain your answer. I am curious.

[daddyo]

You posted an 'opinion' poll, but you have only argued everyone's opinion since they responded to your 'opinion' poll.

What do you want to hear / read?

What is your point?

[Guest Caveman]

...

[memphismason]

The poll is worded to backfire in the face of gun owners and HCP owners.

Both answers can bring us heat.

[Guest Bronker]

What is your point?

...

[daddyo]

Did you miss the part of my post that said "in my opinion"?

DaddyO, what is your objective when shooting someone? and please explain your answer. I am curious.

My objective is to stop the threat, not to kill. If the attacker dies as a result, that's unfortunate, but it is not my intent. I intend to make it home. If he surrenders without firing, then I have accomplished my objective of stopping the threat, and I didn't kill to do it.

The reason I started this thread is because I have heard some disturbing things regarding people's willingness to kill someone. I agree that you have to do whatever is necessary, but for the objective to be "to kill" leaves little room for anything else.

[molonlabetn]

Guns are designed to fire a bullet... a bullet is designed to have some effect on whatever it hits... what the bullet hits is entirely up to the intent and skill of the person operating the gun, and the effect of the bullet upon whatever the person using the gun makes it hit is entirely up to the person who chose the bullet, based on its terminal characteristics.

[daddyo]

The poll is worded to backfire in the face of gun owners and HCP owners.

Both answers can bring us heat.

I didn't word this to backfire in anyone's face.

What's different about this thread, and someone's comment in another thread that his objective is to kill?

Edited May 4, 2010 by DaddyO

[Erik88]

[lowbud]

My objective is to stop the threat, not to kill. If the attacker dies as a result, that's unfortunate, but it is not my intent. I intend to make it home. If he surrenders without firing, then I have accomplished my objective of stopping the threat, and I didn't kill to do it.

The reason I started this thread is because I have heard some disturbing things regarding people's willingness to kill someone. I agree that you have to do whatever is necessary, but for the objective to be "to kill" leaves little room for anything else.

I can agree with that. I never intend to kill anyone. Killing someone sounds too much like murder. I intend to protect myself and family in whatever means necessary.

If someone dies as a result, so be it. My initial intent remains the same.