Shoot to kill or stop the threat?

[Lycanthrope]

If you pause to see if the shot is effective........


Lycanyou'redeadthrope

Hammer like hell until it's obvious.

[imashooter2]

Always shoot to stop. It's unfortunate that the aiming points that offer the most most reliable stopping potential are pretty much the same as those that most reliably kill.

[pacrimescode5904]

I've only read a couple of the replies to this so if I'm being repetitive I apologize.

IMO anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. In order to stop the threat you must ensure that you are going to stop the threat.

If you are justified in shooting then Center Mass hits are the only way to ensure that you go home.

Remember the Tueller rule. Man with a knife within 21 feet and you have a better than average chance of being the victim.

[DaveM55]

Originally Posted by pacrimescode5904

Remember the Tueller rule. Man with a knife within 21 feet and you have a better than average chance of being the victim.

Newer studies indicate 30 feet is a proper general threshold rather than the older 21 feet. Too often 21 feet ends in a tie with a knife wielding assailant. Threat thresholds vary from person-to-person and are situational unique.

Tueller is a reaction time drill NOT a rule, and it does not apply to a threat with a firearm.

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/T.../How.Close.htm

[mchaley]

This has probably already been answered but I'll throw my two cents in.

If you shoot to injure, you dont feel that your life is in serious danger and therefore should not shoot. Period.

The only time you can fire is when your life or life of a loved one is in serious and immediate danger. Shoot into center mass till the threat is no more. If the perp lives, he lives, if not... it better have been justified.

[ErSwnn]

Stop the threat. For me, if shooting is the method it's going to be COM. If the threat stops the shooting stops. As much as I hate the thought of having to run from a threat it's a legal duty to do so if available. I'll swallow my pride and run...and in the long run it's probably the best option from a legal and psychological standpoint. I'll egress the situation as the situation allows.

[Cyo]

If you are using a gun, you've already come to the conclusion that deadly force is warranted.

[Bama Man]

Amen, Cyo,
The term is DEADLY FORCE.
If it comes to a point that I draw my pistol, it has gone beyond anything less than to shoot to kill.
And, to me, anything less than a center mass TAP-TAP shot ( two rounds) is un-exceptable.
That's how I trained, that's how I continue to train, that's how I will react.
If I fire my weapon, it's because I'm in fear of my life, or the life of another.
You don't have to explain to the law, or a jury anything other than that.
"It was him or me officer, I simply believed that . Him or me." End of story

[jahwarrior72]

Originally Posted by pacrimescode5904

Remember the Tueller rule. Man with a knife within 21 feet and you have a better than average chance of being the victim.

last year, me and a coworker got into a conversation about self defense, and this came up. he'd heard about it and read it somewhere, and thought it was silly. "there's no way i couldn't outdraw someone at that distance. i'll bet any money that if you had a knife in your hand, at 21 feet, i'd be able to draw and shoot you."

i whipped out $20, grabbed a stick, put some lime on it, and said, "make it 30 feet. you draw from where you normally carry, and we'll see."

he unloaded his S&W snubbie, and put it in his holster, then covered it in his shirt. one of the ladies we worked with measured out 30' with a measuring tape. when we were in position, she yelled "GO!"

to be fair, he did manage to draw his weapon, but he never got a chance to get in a firing position. i managed to grab his arm, and slash at him on the arms and chest. he was kind of shocked. we repeated it 2 more times, until he finally forked over his $20.

so forget 21 feet. even 30 feet is too close. i say, if he's close enough for me to hear at a normal talking volume, he's too close.

[Tomcat088]

Originally Posted by Lycanthrope

If you pause to see if the shot is effective........


Lycanyou'redeadthrope

Hammer like hell until it's obvious.

Lol, I like this answer Lycan. I agree with everyone here, if you have to draw a firearm to defend yourself, then you're already to the point where you feel your life is threatened. If you have doubts about that, then you probably shouldn't have your pistol out of it's holster, etc. Bad things happen when people depend on hitting small targets in stressful situations.

I did want to mention something though. There are some people that would like to "try" to "hit to wound" and not have as high of a probability of mortality. I suppose because this is the person's choice to do so, and since they are putting their life in jeopardy, I will mention this. There are some people that prefer to aim for the "pelvic girdle". This means that you would basically be aiming at the torso, below the belly button. If you hit someone in the pelvis, it will break and it makes it very difficult to walk, run, etc. Keep in mind that you could run into several different arteries (femoral, possibly renal, etc). This means that the person could still die, or could be maimed/crippled for the rest of their life. You will have to deal with the ramifications of that shot, and in most states, the civil lawsuits and care of someone if they were permanently disabled. I personally would choose to shoot COM, and if needed a bit higher. If one is so inclined though, this offers this higher hit probability over an appendage; while offering a slightly smaller margin of fatality. It should be noted that you're shooting at a target that is less than half the size of COM (probably more like 1/3 or 1/4), so this is a much more difficult shot to make.