Shoot to kill vs shoot to stop a threat

[ShaulWolf]

So the term "shoot to stop a threat" has become a norm, and the term "shoot to kill" is more and more taboo. I find this an interesting shift.

• A firearm is designed with the purpose of being a deadly weapon.
• Discharging a firearm at a person, or any living thing, is meant to have the purpose of killing said person or thing.
• The ammunition designed for personal protection is meant to cause catastrophic damage to tissue and organs that results in immediate incapacitation.
• Immediate incapacitation is generally death, or quickly causing it.

So knowing these things, we generally shoot to kill an attacker. But we don't call it "shooting to kill". Using that phrase seems to imply malicious intent now, because the act of "killing" is what an attacker does. However, it seems that the end result of firing a gun at someone is generally meant to be killing someone.

For our purposes, those of us carrying for self defense, this is only done in the event that we feel we will likely be killed ourselves, or where serious bodily harm or rape is a very real possibility. It is killing for self preservation.

But we don't want to call it that. Again, it implies that we are trying to cause more harm than necessary. However, if we aren't trying to kill in the name of self preservation, then what are we trying to do?

"Stopping a threat", to me, means firing until the attacker goes down and stays down, and they aren't able to present a threat anymore. Aim center of mass to inflict the most damage until they aren't able to attack. This means lots of blood loss, internal organs destroyed, shock, and system failure. Again, the end result is probably going to be death. If they haven't died, but aren't able to press the attack, then there's no need to keep firing. But chances are they'll end up dead.

So, realistically, we are shooting to kill. If they don't die, then it seems more like they lucked out.

Disclaimer:

• I don't advocate using either term.
• I don't advocate shooting an incapacitated attacker more until they are, in fact, dead.
• If they aren't attacking anymore and they don't show the ability to continue, then I think to not stop would dip into murder.
• Shooting someone in self defense is a HUGE deal, and this highlights a little bit of why.
• This gives a chance to play devil's advocate.
• This was meant to stir some discussion and be food for thought.

[G23neverjams]

Essentially, you're correct.

The truth is that shooting to kill us a malicious act unless it's done in war. In war, that's called being humane...

The other sub-category you must look at is the fact that the normal person does not WANT to kill and because it is in our nature to feel that way, the thought of "shooting to kill" bothers some people even though that is what they are doing. When you aim a weapon at something you mean to destroy it. To what extent is dependant on the object that requires being destroyed.

The man who ate the homeless guys face...
The officer shot first to "subdue" and when one didn't work, he shot to stop the threat. The guy happened to be on bath salts (or a zombie....) and in order to stop the guy it required more destroying than the body could come back from.

My point is that we shoot to stop a threat, and if that means killing in the process of saving my or my loved ones life, so be it. The hope is that it will never have to come to that.

[cakeshooter]

Interestingly enough, "warning shots" are illegal too, or at least frowned upon (I am not sure about the laws on "warning shots" but seems like there's been some bad publicity lately on them).

Sooooo if you can't fire a warning shot, and you're not supposed to shoot to kill...that means you better be practicing up REAL good at the range so you can hit somebody's big toe from 15 yards.

I've been told that dead men tell no lies (in case of self defense of course)...but then...hopefully I won't have to defend myself any time soon so the lawyers can look up the fact I posted this on a public forum and I"ll end up next door to Zimmerman.....

[HiredGoon]

Interestingly enough, "warning shots" are illegal too, or at least frowned upon (I am not sure about the laws on "warning shots" but seems like there's been some bad publicity lately on them).

Sooooo if you can't fire a warning shot, and you're not supposed to shoot to kill...that means you better be practicing up REAL good at the range so you can hit somebody's big toe from 15 yards.

I've been told that dead men tell no lies (in case of self defense of course)...but then...hopefully I won't have to defend myself any time soon so the lawyers can look up the fact I posted this on a public forum and I"ll end up next door to Zimmerman.....

I think you'll be OK since your user name is cakeshooter and not cakekiller

[kujo0311]

this is the way i see it. yes, saying shoot to kill sounds harsh. but to be realistic, i cant justify shooting someone to wound them. because that makes me believe i probably shouldn't be shooting that person in the first place. if i feel hesitant about either killing the person or wounding him, i would imagine there is no reason to shoot. shooting in self defense means my life or a loved ones life is in immediate peril, its me or them.

i would also imagine it be hard to build a defense in a court room on , " your honor, i only meant to wound him." someone mentioned earlier in the posts about war time also. being an iraq vet, this all strikes close to home. because in the end the rule of the day is to " shoot to stop the threat." as shaulwolf posted, we train to shoot center mast and in doing so actually train to shoot to kill. but when the attacker drops to the ground and stops advancing the attack. then you have neutralized the threat. at this point, " down, scan the area and, evaluate the situation." whats the condition of my weapon ?, do i need more shots on target ? is there other threats? is he done with the attack ? is he reaching for another weapon ? all these things should be flooding your mind. on the same token ,just cause hes down doesn't mean hes out of the game. with all this said, there is no justification for walking up to an incapacitated attacker and executing him. because then you walked across the "self defense line" and are knee deep in murder.


just my 2 cents. take it or leave it.

[imashooter2]

I absolutely shoot to stop. That is the only desired result of my defensive use of a firearm, that the attack stops. It is simply an unfortunate coincidence that the locations for shot placement most likely to stop are also the locations most likely to kill.

[csmith]

It is amazing how much word play has become necessary for the sake of covering our own asses even if/when the use of deadly force is permitted under the law. Our society has become so PC we don't know up from down anymore.

[Gun]

It is amazing how much word play has become necessary for the sake of covering our own asses even if/when the use of deadly force is permitted under the law. Our society has become so PC we don't know up from down anymore.

Use of deadly force would be the correct term in a self defense shooting.

[ShaulWolf]

Consider the purpose of shooting at center of mass. Major blood vessels, heart, lungs, and spine are all located in that general area. Now consider what hollow points, or any expanding ammo.

Should the attacker survive the initial one, two, or five shots, however many it took for them to stop, they will likely die.

So, is there really a difference between the two terms? What is the difference? Why?

[theduke]

They should call it "shoot until they cant sue you!"