Shoot to kill, or shoot to wound?

[Pro2A]

Pros and cons of each? Why did you pick what you did?

Personally in a defense scenario, I'd shoot to kill to avoid possible legal "liability".

[ScaredOnce]

NEITHER.

Shoot to end the threat.



Call your lawyer.

[normanvin]

NEITHER.

Shoot to end the threat.



Call your lawyer.

What he said..

[ragu1macrider]

What he said..

+1

But, whatever it takes to end the threat

[markheck1]

Shoot to stop...

if that results in the death of the perpetrator.....so be it....

[ScaredOnce]

What he said..

Originally Posted by ScaredOnce View Post
NEITHER.

Shoot to end the threat.



Call your lawyer.

Maybe the poll could be amended?

[97grnrs]

if you dont shoot to kill they may come back later to kill you.

[Konsukah_19]

if you dont shoot to kill they may come back later to kill you.

A lot of times depending on the situation, all that needs to be done is have the business end of the gun pointing at you, and your demeanor changes when you think that bullet will put a hole in you.

In terms of the shoot to kill thing, hehe, tell that to your lawyer.
Suppress the threat, if you do not need to kill, then don't. You have a lot of responsibility and legal recourse if you should squeeze that trigger. A lawyer will also try to tear your ass apart.

[Bookers]

Maybe the poll could be amended?

I agree....


1st time ive heard the term shoot to end the threat.........

Ive always heard shoot to kill to avoid legal threats afterwards


That's is why I frequent different boards you can learn something new everyday. "good or bad"

[Pocat6]

there no wound with my gun if i shoot them from close range their done for, 8mm mauser bullets core lokts expand enough about a foot of damage to the insides= lots of pepto bismol to fix that