What is your objective in a self-defense shooting?

[E4 No More]

To kill is to stop the threat. You don't know if they are no longer a threat until they are dead. Many people have feigned surrender to police only to turn around and kill the officer. Since I'm no longer an officer the only way I'll stop is if the guy shows me nuth'n but azzhole and elbows.

[memphismason]

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

The way it is worded.

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

A self defense shooting, does not allow for a surrender. The shooting has already begun. Now if I have emptied my gun and in the middle of a reload, the "target" is not dead and throws his hands up and surrenders, then I will cease to fire the other rounds. However my training does not allow for this to happen as I hope I could put the bullets where I was aiming, which would result in a certain death.

[mikegideon]

We train ourselves to go for the vitals. If our shot placement is dead on, then both will happen. I will shoot to kill (aim for center mass), because it's the most effective way to accomplish the legal objective of stopping the threat. That's why they call it deadly force. I won't keep shooting after the threat is stopped.

[Smith]

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 think you are referring to a post I made in another thread, but you took it out of context. What I was saying is that if you don't plan on killing a person when you fire your gun you will be the one that ends up dead. You can not go into a shooting situation with a mentality of trying to "wing" or "shoot the gun out of his hand" stuff. Guns are serious business that have serious consequences. If you pull it you better understand that more than likely what ever is on the receiving end will be dead. The intent is never to kill, but rather to preserve life. That being an innocent victims. The bad guy has made the decision to be on the opposite end and what ever befalls him is the consequence of his choice, not mine.

If I were Rambo I could shoot the guns out of peoples hands from 100 yards away on a quick draw from the hip. However, the reality is that i will be shooting center mass until the threat is done. Several holes in the chest usually means death. If he live great if he dies too bad. I'm not thinking about him.

[daddyo]

I think you are referring to a post I made in another thread, but you took it out of context. What I was saying is that if you don't plan on killing a person when you fire your gun you will be the one that ends up dead. You can not go into a shooting situation with a mentality of trying to "wing" or "shoot the gun out of his hand" stuff. Guns are serious business that have serious consequences. If you pull it you better understand that more than likely what ever is on the receiving end will be dead. The intent is never to kill, but rather to preserve life. That being an innocent victims. The bad guy has made the decision to be on the opposite end and what ever befalls him is the consequence of his choice, not mine.

If I were Rambo I could shoot the guns out of peoples hands from 100 yards away on a quick draw from the hip. However, the reality is that i will be shooting center mass until the threat is done. Several holes in the chest usually means death. If he live great if he dies too bad. I'm not thinking about him.

I was going on two points you made.

You said that guns were designed to kill.

You also said that your objective was to kill in a self-defense situation.

Not really sure how I could take that out of context.

[Erik88]

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.

Very well put, I think you summed it up nicely

[Smith]

I was going on two points you made.

You said that guns were designed to kill.

You also said that your objective was to kill in a self-defense situation.

Not really sure how I could take that out of context.

refer to the post I made that you quoted and to the post I replied to where I made those statements ie context.

In case your seach fu is weak.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnsonc22

Ok...I see alot of ppl say hollow points, Do any of you Mix rounds in your clip. Say a lighter and less aggressive round to a critical defense round. I have 3 different rounds in my clip...does anyone else do that? i went out shooting just to see how it would work and it seemed effective. (i know you want first round and down capability) I took CCI snake shot, then TAP round, and then a flat nose +p .40 S&W. I took out multiple targets to shoot at and it seemed to be well fun. the CCI peppered it, then the holllow point stopped it and the +p Made sure it was a gonner! So...after about 4 rounds I think I still am at the same conclusion.....i need to carry enough guns for each condition....LOL

From Smith:

Wrong mentality. Guns are designed to kill. Maiming or "winging" someone is for the movies where they can say cut or the bad guys explode from a .22 shot in the arm. If and when you shoot, you shoot to kill. If you are thinking otherwise you will be the dead one.

Guy was talking about using LTL rounds. That is a very dangerous mentality.

BTW

What are guns designed to do? If you want something LTL you DO NOT need to be carrying a gun. A good baton, or knife, but not a gun.

I don't believe I said I intend to kill. If I did i meant that if I pull my gun that will be the likely outcome. I do not intend to try and preserve his life or "wound" him. That is a dangerous mentality. From both a personal standpoint as well as a safety standpoint. This isn't that hard or complicated.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Smith

[mikegideon]

I was going on two points you made.

You said that guns were designed to kill.

You also said that your objective was to kill in a self-defense situation.

Not really sure how I could take that out of context.

What was a 1911 designed to do? Is another brand of locked breach, short recoil handgun designed to do something different? They ALL have the same basic function.

FWIW, I voted number two, but there are some harsh realities here.

[E4 No More]

I don't know why anyone would be squeamish about saying they'd intend to kill an attacker. If someone is trying to kill me I'm going to do my damndest to kill them first.

[MCSCOTT]

Since the question is about what the intent is in a self defense shooting, instead of what the intent is when pulling the weapon, then I think most people are going to shoot to kill. However, we're not murderers here, so I think most would also stop firing if they were to miss or only wound causing the BG to give up, so to me that would mean the actual intent is to simply eliminate the threat.

[E4 No More]

Since a murderer is someone who kills unjustly in the eyes of the law, I don't think "murderers" applies at all to the question/poll.

[Magiccarpetrides]

Well im sorry but im just not a good enough shot to "stop the threat" so im gonna shoot until most likely they are dead.

[Guest David865]

You should never shoot your gun at anything you don't want to destroy.

[Garufa]

I recommend that before this goes to far, and it will, you all think long and hard about what you'll say standing tall before the man after taking another life in self-defense.

[Smith]

I recommend that before this goes to far, and it will, you all think long and hard about what you'll say standing tall before the man after taking another life in self-defense.

Easy. "I shot to neutralize the threat".

Judge - Where you aiming to kill?

Me - I aimed to neutralize the threat.

Judge - Why so many shots?

Me - I fired till the threat was neutralized.

Judge - You needed more than one?

Me - He hadn't stopped or turned back. Once he did, I stopped.

[Garufa]

Easy. "I shot to neutralize the threat".

Judge - Where you aiming to kill?

Me - I aimed to neutralize the threat.

Judge - Why so many shots?

Me - I fired till the threat was neutralized.

Judge - You needed more than one?

Me - He hadn't stopped or turned back. Once he did, I stopped.

You understand. Apparently there are 3 who do not.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Garufa

[Oh Shoot]

I recommend that before this goes to far, and it will, you all think long and hard about what you'll say standing tall before the man after taking another life in self-defense.

Judge: "You cut this man to pieces. He bled out in less than a minute".

Me: "Well, Your Honor, I thought I showed remarkable restraint. After all, I could have SHOT him."

- OS

[Smith]

You understand. Apparently there are 3 who do not.

Straight out of the HCP course.

[Jasongar8]

We (most of us) train to shoot the biggest part of the body. It just so happens that the organs that are vital to life are stored in this part of the body. The majority of the time when this part of the body is hit and one of those major organs are injured or destroyed our body no longer has the ability to sustain life.

If you shoot where you will have the biggest chance of getting hits the end result is most likely the death of the person shot. It is just the way our anatomy is made up.

[Guest jackdm3]

You understand. Apparently there are 3 who do not.

"Apparently there were 12 who didn't understand."

That would be something I would never want to hear.

[Guest pwhphd]

Better listen to Garufa, he fully understands some basic facts that many seem to be overlooking:

1. The best weapon for self defense is between your ears.

2. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

3. Never point a gun at anyone you are not willing to shoot [or kill].

4. Closed-end multiple choice questions do not yield reliable results.

5. Careful [or careless] question wording can illicit biased answers.

6. If you kill someone, even in self defense, expect to go to court.

With just such directed questions as this [e.g.,"Do you still beat your wife? Yes - admits you are a wife beater. No - indicates you were a wife beater. Neither is the case, but both look bad. Better be careful!

[E4 No More]

Deadly force is either authorized or not folks. You are either justified to use it or not. If you are not justified you are screwed either way that you answer this poll. If you are justified then it doesn't matter how you answer this poll.

You can play semantics all you want, but it really doesn't change facts: you were either justified or not.

[Guest Daelith]

I would shoot to neutralize the threat. I would continue to shoot until the threat was neutralized or leaving.

[Currently]

Anything you post on the internet can and will be used against you in a court of law.

Anything you post on the internet will be taken out of context and used against you.

Some discussions are just loaded with landmines that can and will go off when you least expect it.

[Guest Caveman]

Anything you post on the internet can and will be used against you in a court of law.

Anything you post on the internet will be taken out of context and used against you.

Some discussions are just loaded with landmines that can and will go off when you least expect it.