What is your objective in a self-defense shooting?

[daddyo]

DaddyO, I also find it odd that you keep going on about this yet in your profile I see you carry a .45 and under Carry #2 you say anything but a mousegun. If you're so intent on preserving life in a shooting, shouldn't you be carrying a small caliber that would greatly reduce the risk of a fatality. After all, you intent is only to stop the threat. Wouldn't a .32 or .22 do that just as well?

Maybe you can get your choral group to sing Kum ba ya with you and ease your mind a bit.

Forgive me for saying so, but your ballistic knowledge is just as poor as your knowledge of carrying for self-defense. Mouseguns are ineffective as self-defense weapons where stopping the threat is concerned. I don't have time for the bad guy to bleed out if he's intent on shooting back at me.

I intend to preserve my own life if I am ever in a SD shooting. I never said my intent was to preserve the attacker's. How you arrive at that conclusion is beyond my comprehension.

The concept of shooting to stop the threat vs. shooting to kill really isn't difficult. If you'd get your emotions out of the way and your blinders off you'd see that.

Nothing personal.

Edited May 5, 2010 by DaddyO

[Smith]

Forgive me for saying so, but your ballistic knowledge is just as poor as your knowledge of carrying for self-defense. Mouseguns are ineffective as self-defense weapons where stopping the threat is concerned. I don't have time for the bad guy to bleed out if he's intent on shooting back at me.

I intend to preserve my own life if I am ever in a SD shooting. I never said my intent was to preserve the attacker's. How you arrive at that conclusion is beyond my comprehension.

The concept of shooting to stop the threat vs. shooting to kill really isn't difficult. If you'd get your emotions out of the way and your blinders off you'd see that.

Nothing personal.

Still not going to answer the questions? I've and others have asked several times now. Set you symantics aside and you will see we have said the same thing, yet you sit in aghast at how I couch it. I find irritating when people refuse to see the forest because of the trees.

BTW - You called me out on two different threads and then started a third all centered around what you perceive as something it's not. I see no other way than to take it personal.

[molonlabetn]

Forgive me for saying so, but your ballistic knowledge is just as poor as your knowledge of carrying for self-defense. Mouseguns are ineffective as self-defense weapons where stopping the threat is concerned. I don't have time for the bad guy to bleed out if he's intent on shooting back at me.

I intend to preserve my own life if I am ever in a SD shooting. I never said my intent was to preserve the attacker's. How you arrive at that conclusion is beyond my comprehension.

The concept of shooting to stop the threat vs. shooting to kill really isn't difficult. If you'd get your emotions out of the way and your blinders off you'd see that.

Nothing personal.

The objective of using a weapon to preserve your own life by stopping the threat is exactly right, as you said... but I believe the point which is being made to you is that we must also recognize the fact that using a firearm as a weapon is universally considered 'deadly force', whether or not the intent is to kill. That is why it is impossible to separate the argument that if you use deadly force, you do so with the knowledge that killing is a potential result. We see where you're soming from. Basically, it is not our intent to kill, but it is recognized as a consequential result of our decision to use deadly force as a justifiable response while defending our lives.

[Smith]

BTW - if you're going to quote me at least read the quote before you reference it.

I'll say no more. Sorry for the clutter guys.

[daddyo]

The objective of using a weapon to preserve your own life by stopping the threat is exactly right, as you said... but I believe the point which is being made to you is that we must also recognize the fact that using a firearm as a weapon is universally considered 'deadly force', whether or not the intent is to kill. That is why it is impossible to separate the argument that if you use deadly force, you do so with the knowledge that killing is a potential result. We see where you're soming from. Basically, it is not our intent to kill, but it is recognized as a consequential result of our decision to use deadly force as a justifiable response while defending our lives.

That's it exactly. I'm not suggesting that we need to try and avoid death by "wounding". It just disturbs me that there are people on this forum who think they MUST kill the attacker if they have to draw their weapon. Huge difference.

Edited May 5, 2010 by DaddyO

[daddyo]

BTW - if you're going to quote me at least read the quote before you reference it.

I don't remember quoting you. I have given you my impressions based on your comments.

Not sure why you keep denying that you said something when you indeed said that very thing.

Edited May 5, 2010 by DaddyO

[Smith]

That's it exactly. I'm not suggesting that we need to try and avoid death by "wounding". It just disturbs me that there are people on this forum who think they MUST kill the attacker if they have to draw their weapon. Huge difference.

NO ONE said that.

I don't remember quoting you. I have given you my impressions based on your comments.

Not sure why you keep denying that you said something when you indeed said that very thing.

:lol:

[E4 No More]

That's it exactly. I'm not suggesting that we need to try and avoid death by "wounding". It just disturbs me that there are people on this forum who think they MUST kill the attacker if they have to draw their weapon. Huge difference.

It's called a mindset, and is why I am likely to survive while you are not. It's like the deputy in California who screamed like a little girl while trying to get his murderer to put down his weapon so that the deputy didn't have to kill him. The video link has been posted here before. He was trained, but he wasn't prepared to actually kill.

If you aren't prepared to kill then you will lose. Again, justified is justified and you seem pathologically unable to understand this along with many others here on the forum.

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

Define deadly force. Force applied to cause death or severe bodily harm.

Define the purpose of a gun. A tool designed to cause death or serious bodily harm.

When are we justified to use our weapons?

When in fear of our lives or severe bodily harm or the same to someone else. It all kinda fits dont it?

If you shoot, the intent is to kill. There is no argument about that.

With all due respect Sir I understand what you are trying to say but that is indeed the argument.

IF I fire my weapon my INTENT is to stop a threat of severe bodily harm to myself or someone else.

I have no INTENT to kill.

Now will the act of me firing to stop the threat result in the threat's death? Sure that is quite possible, but that is not my INTENT and never will be.

We are taught to shoot at COM to best stop the threat.....

Not because that is the best area to cause death as that would be the head or thorax. We are taught to shoot at COM because that is the easiest area to hit that will cause severe bodily harm which will stop the threat, and absolutely maybe death.

That still does not translate into our INTENT is to kill, our INTENT is to stop the threat not to kill the threat.

If we were trained to KILL every time we fired at a threat we would be trained to shoot at the head or thorax and not at COM.

[Guest Letereat!]

Ok. I avoided the question the first two days and havent stopped thinking about the issue since submitting my vote to shoot to Kill.

if i may Lets lay out two brief parameters.

The perpatrator has entered your home uninvited under his own volition.

He is either armed or unarmed as this makes a huge difference.

Leave all the pistol packing in public out for the time being for sake of not over complicating the disscussion.

If the poor chap is not armed odds are that the display of deadly force accompanied by the universal sound of racking a round and mabey a blinding light to the face in conjunction with a terse and to the point warning that they may want to depart or taste some lead would likely be more than enough to scare the moron off.If your feeling really threatned then id say the next step would be to decide what in the house is gonna get blown to hell if you believe in warning shots, the guy is more than likely long gone and obviously you do not chase him outside blasting away you let the poor bastard go and call the friendly Blue Suits and let them do their thing.

If the individual is armed with a firearm of any type you disablers are kidding yourselves I hate to say. Most of u I presume have a trusty 12 guage short barrell of some sort or the turkey gun loaded with 00 Buck. I prefer 9 pelet but 15 will do. And the rest i presume a .45,9mil,Sig .357,.32 etc in addition to or instead of the above.

When faced with threat of death by some stranger with a gun you aim for center mass and let the chips fall period. If you are under any illusion that anyone being pounded by 9-15 pellets from 10-30 ft with your 12 guage home defender is gonna live well good luck. my bets on a dead individual. And your hollow point .45 or .38 rounds are not exactly friendly either. Never shoot a gun at something you do not wish to destroy. Its shoot to kill...him or you, if he wins are u prepared to imagine the fate of your family after your dead and who knows what happens to them. Just get real and face the facts thats all im saying.

[daddyo]

It's called a mindset, and is why I am likely to survive while you are not. It's like the deputy in California who screamed like a little girl while trying to get his murderer to put down his weapon so that the deputy didn't have to kill him. The video link has been posted here before. He was trained, but he wasn't prepared to actually kill.

If you aren't prepared to kill then you will lose. Again, justified is justified and you seem pathologically unable to understand this along with many others here on the forum.

You haven't understood me at all, but that's apparently my fault for not communicating my ideas well enough. But I'm not really sure how else to say it.

[SamZzz]

I vote "to stop the threat". When I took the HCP class my instructor explained the difference as it would matter from a legal standpoint. If I am pulling my weapon to "kill" the BG I'm committing murder. If I pull my weapon to "eliminate the threat" I'm defending myself. Although the outcome may be the same, the wording can make all the difference on the witness stand.

[E4 No More]

The poll is: "What should your objective be in a self-defense shooting?"; not what do you tell the police, prosecuting attorney, or judge. It's not what you say in in a civil suit, or how you spin it to make yourself feel better about having to act in your own defense.

But if your mindset in not such that you are willing to kill you will most likely lose just as that deputy in California lost. Hesitation is sure to bite you right in the azz every time.

[TGO David]

...to survive.

Agreed. If I am put in the situation where I have to use deadly force to survive the encounter, I am going to shoot to eliminate the threat. If they die as a result of their aggression and my duty for self-preservation, then that's an unfortunate result of their actions.

[Punisher84]

Holy ****! I am astounded by the bad information in this thread. About half the people who posted need to go back to HCP class and sit down with a lawyer.

I know it will fall on deaf ears, but you CAN BE SUED. The law was written as a deterrent to basically state if you were not found criminally liable you CANNOT be held liable in a civil suit, but you CAN still be sued and have to appear in court.

[memphismason]

This is silly. There are a whole bunch of guys saying the same thing but arguing with each other.

I see six eggs....NO you don't, because there are only half a dozen there.........but that is what I am saying, I see six of them.......and thats where you are wrong, there are half a dozen.

[mikegideon]

Holy ****! I am astounded by the bad information in this thread. About half the people who posted need to go back to HCP class and sit down with a lawyer.

I know it will fall on deaf ears, but you CAN BE SUED. The law was written as a deterrent to basically state if you were not found criminally liable you CANNOT be held liable in a civil suit, but you CAN still be sued and have to appear in court.

Doesn't the TCA also say that all costs go to the plaintiff if the suit is unsuccessful?

[E4 No More]

Doesn't the TCA also say that all costs go to the plaintiff if the suit is unsuccessful?

Yes, it does, which makes it ironic how he complains of bad information.

[mikegideon]

This is silly. There are a whole bunch of guys saying the same thing but arguing with each other.

I see six eggs....NO you don't, because there are only half a dozen there.........but that is what I am saying, I see six of them.......and thats where you are wrong, there are half a dozen.

I'm going to shoot for the center of the chest, but my intent is not to kill, even though my intent is to make kill shots until the threat stops. What I really want is world peace

It feel like some folks are conditioning themselves to say the right things if anything ever happens. The ONLY thing you should say is, "I need to speak to my lawyer".

[memphismason]

my intent is not to kill, even though my intent is to make kill shots

Guys, I don't carry a gun with the intent on killing someone. Most of us don't. Most of us pray that we never ever need to use the damn thing, but we carry with the mindset that if put in a situation we have the means to defend ourselves to the best of our ability.

But having said that;

Weren't you taught never point your gun at anything that you are not willing to destroy or kill?

My HCP instructor said that he could not tell us to "shoot to kill", but he could say "shoot to stop or neutralize the threat" .

I am under no illusion that in a self defense encounter after I finished shooting the target, that he will live, due to the fact that I made "KILL SHOTS".

That why I said in an earlier post, once I enter a "Self Defense Shooting" , Stopping the Threat and Killing are the same, period. You can sugar coat it, you can PC it until you are blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact that Kill Shots = Killing. After you have drawn your weapon and have decided to shoot the bad guy, if you intent is not to kill him, you need to not make "KILL SHOTS".

Edited May 6, 2010 by memphismason

[E4 No More]

Guys, I don't carry a gun with the intent on killing someone. Most of us don't. Most of us pray that we never ever need to use the damn thing, but we carry with the mindset that if put in a situation we have the means to defend ourselves to the best of our ability.

But having said that;

Weren't you taught never point your gun at anything that you are not willing to destroy or kill?

My HCP instructor said that he could not tell us to "shoot to kill", but he could say "shoot to stop or neutralize the threat" .

I am under no illusion that in a self defense encounter after I finished shooting the target, that he will live, due to the fact that I made "KILL SHOTS".

That why I said in an earlier post, once I enter a "Self Defense Shooting" , Stopping the Threat and Killing are the same, period. You can sugar coat it, you can PC it until you are blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact that Kill Shots = Killing. After you have drawn your weapon and have decided to shoot the bad guy, if you intent is not to kill him, you need to not make "KILL SHOTS".

Well stated, even with the wrong word error!

[E4 No More]

I'm going to shoot for the center of the chest, but my intent is not to kill, even though my intent is to make kill shots until the threat stops. What I really want is world peace

It feel like some folks are conditioning themselves to say the right things if anything ever happens. The ONLY thing you should say is, "I need to speak to my lawyer".

Exactly, or maybe add "I was in fear of my life."

[memphismason]

Well stated, even with the wrong word error!

missed a letter.

[Guest Letereat!]

I agree.

[Guest Letereat!]

Three cheers for Memphismason. Well Put. Never point a gun at sometning you do not wish to destroy. I have no desire to kill or harm anyone or anything...However if put in the situation where i must defend myself from deadly force by using it myself well......hope for the best but plan for the worst.