Shoot to Disarm vs. Shoot to Kill

[tinnman357]

daddy always said never draw a gun on a man lessin you gonna make him stop breathin

[lorcin25]

With a wife and a child on the way I can honestly say that if someone breaks in, my Mossberg 500 with 00 buck is going to unload until I don't hear anything moving.

If the attacker has the audacity of coming into my castle, he will have a humbling experience....whether he survives or not will depend on the Lord.

[Tex in Maine]

Originally Posted by TexasT

Very interesting thoughts. I guess CCW teachers have to say shoot to disarm to cover their behinds perhaps? What you all are saying makes a lot of sense.

My CCW instructer said what most are saying here, "shoot to stop the threat". And shoot for center mass but not as a kill zone but more for the fact you are more likely to hit the perpitrater and not innocents.

[OldTimer]

Originally Posted by TexasT

I have been pondering this for a long time. . . I don't want to live with the burden that I killed somebody intentionally. I'd like to know what you guys think. . . I guess I'll poll this too.

Texas T:
If I were in a situation where I felt I had to use a firearm to protect my family or myself, I would not "Shoot until the threat is eliminated" (as stated in the poll). I would SHOOT TO ELIMINATE THE THREAT. I would not shoot to disarm or wound or kill, only to stop the threat. If the perp dies, his bad not mine. Bad guy's life or mine...his all day, every day, 24/7/365. And it would not burden me in the least.
Before anyone decides to carry, they need to resolve any feelings of doubt or potential remorse.

[502adamh]

Before anyone decides to carry, they need to resolve any feelings of doubt or potential remorse.

Amen Oldtimer, that is what I preach to every "student" of mine. The only time that you should clear leather is when your life is in danger. No negotiation, opportunities to disarm have already been exhausted by the time your muzzle passed your thumb break.


IMHO if you own or carry a firearm for defense you should first ask yourself these questions:

1. Can I retain my weapon proficiently, drawn or holstered, so that only I have control of its potential?

2. Can I store my weapon responsibly to keep it secure and out of the hands of unqualified adults, underage persons, and off the street in the event of a break-in?

3. Can I skillfully use my weapon with precision under a variety of conditions and circumstances?

4. Can I use my weapon justifiably and without hesitation to protect my life and the lives of others?

If your answer to any of these questions is "no" you should consider further training from a reputable defense instructor or an alternative to firearms such as OC (pepper spray) or Tasers.

[Troy]

Originally Posted by OldTimer

Before anyone decides to carry, they need to resolve any feelings of doubt or potential remorse.

it has to be that way. the innocent will wind up on the buisness end of their own gun if they dont mean to use it. there is too high of a percentage of homeowners getting shot with their own gun because they couldn't use it when they had to.

[Shaun]

I shoot to stop the threat. The only target is center mass unless the 2nd round does not bring the threat to a stop then I shoot isreali Failure drills with 2 to the head. The response always to the courts is shoot to stop the threat and that is the only answer even if I unload my extra magazine.

also remember death is only a side effect of loss of blood and shock you are only here to stop a threat.

[Lizard]

I didn't answer the poll for the same reasons as others. My only firearms training was at Ft. Leonard Wood and there we were told, "Center mass - you're most likely to hit them" and that hitting center mass doesn't mean killing. A lot of people survive if you hit them after aiming CM.

Just aiming CM doesn't mean that you're going to put a round through their heart.

I also would never try to "disarm" someone unless I could go toe to toe with Annie Oakley. I shoot regularly and I have confidence that I could at least hit someone in the general torso region if I shot at them and they were near. But I also know that if they were moving, or at any distance at all, I would never be able to pull a Hopalong Cassidy and shoot the gun out of their hands.

I also remember the only time I was ever shot at, I had to go after the guy with a knife because that's all that I had and I was convinced he was going to try to kill my friends. I don't want to be in that position again.

I had no desire to kill the person, only to stop the threat. That will hold true if that ever happens again and am I'm fortunate enough to be armed. And to me, the threat is over when the person is down and there is no weapon in her (oops, I meant, "his") hand.

[dogman2]

If you have to ask you are not ready for the responsiblity of CCW. You should train and practice till muscle memory takes over and the threat is stopped. My formula is the Rhoadisian love tap, two to the chest and one to the head, repeat as neccessary. Takes care of anyone wearing body armor. It has been so ;ong since Rhoadesia has been a country I don't know if I spelled it right.

[LiveToShoot]

Since you changed the poll options, I would need to change my vote to "Shoot until the threat is eliminated".

Thanks for the change...it's now more user friendly with my state's statutes for the use of deadly force in a life threatening situation, because a threat isn't always neutralized when just disarmed.

Maybe when dis-legged, but not always when disarmed.

[TexasT]

Ok, I asked this question months ago and I no longer need advice on it. Actually, when I asked it I didn't phrase it correctly. A mod can close this thread if they want, or we can continue to beat a dead horse.

[LiveToShoot]

As with nearly all the forum posts, the info doesn't expire...because there are always new people joining the G&G forum. These new people may be just starting to wake up to what's going on around us and how it's appropriate, legal, to respond to a given situation.

Thanks for your initial post TexasT, it was, and still is, a good thought stimulator and subsequent info provider.

[dogman2]

It is a very pertinent post whether new or old. You have to have the MIND SET to be able to defend your self and if it involves taking a life you have got to be live with your self on being able to go home. You cannot have compassion for the perps in this world you did not make them that way. You just cured them. You have to practice and train to respond as automatically as possible and take all thought out of the equation and be able to live with the consequences. I had an advantage when growing up as my mother didn't have kids she had slaves or actually worse treatment than slaves. It taught me a very low regard for human life and the Marines took advantage of a personality that did not form strong ties with anyone and had little or no compassion.

[LiveToShoot]

Dogman... My wife and I spent some time in Ankeny, IA on a business assignment about three years ago. One of the most friendly places we've lived. We also enjoyed the open and green landscape.

[boesman82]

Hey all shoot to stop is what i was told going to my class and then if he dies then tell the police it was self defense and you will give a statement after talking to your lawyer.

I am in the military and believe in never pointing a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot, but if the sob see the weapon and run buy law I have to let him go otherwise I will double tap and send two rounds down range to the perp.

Always expect the worst case he who attacks you is going to kill you.

[Cyrano]

Originally Posted by Triggerjerk

Unfortunately, in Massachussetts you have to evacuate your home if an intruder comes in. You cannot defend it. In NH you are required to retreat if at all possible on the street, but you can stay and defend your home. State laws vary.

Yes. Things in Massachusetts are still as bad as they were back in the days when Argosy Magazine had a feature called "The Court of Last Resort." Simply put, it was a group of lawyers (including Erle Stanley Gardner, the creator of Perry Mason) who did pro bono work for people who had been egregiously wronged by the legal system. You can think of them as being kind of a lawyers' A Team: "If you've been screwed over by the courts, and it's clear there is a miscarriage of justice, and if you can persuade them to take your case, maybe you can hire The A Team."

The last case Gardner worked on before his death in 1970 has stuck with me all these years. It is worth noting that Erle Stanley Gardner was a passionate shooter, and the inventor of shotshells safe to fire out of a revolver. CCI built on his pioneering work when they began to market their rifle and pistol caiber shotshells. The case took place in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

A recent widow woke up one night to the sound of breaking glass on the ground floor of her house. She and her husband were both hunters, she for wildfowl and he for deer and ducks. She got out of bed, went to the study opposite the bedroom, and without turning on the lights took her favorite side by side 12-gauge out of the rack and fumbled the first two shells she could find by feel into the breech. She closed the action and went quietly down the stairs to the first floor.

She could hear sounds in the dining room, where she kept a full set of steling silver flatware and serving dishes. She walked to the archway, reached around the corner and turned on the lights.

The burglar spun around and looked at her, his bag of loot in one hand. She ordered him to drop the bag and get on the floor. He grabbed up a silver-handled carving knife and came toward her, menacing her with the knife. She backed up and warned him she would shoot. He come on. She backed all the way down the corridor by the stairs and he still came on, dripping flatware out of the bag as he came. She ended up with her back against the wall. He lunged for her. She squeezed both triggers. The burglar hit the floor dead, cut nearly in half by two loads of 00 buckshot at point blank range, the knife still in his hand.

Now, in any sane state the widow would have been commended for defending herself and her home. But this happened in Massachusetts.

The local police arrested her and charged her with Murder One. Why first degree murder?

Well, at the trial the D.A. advanced the novel argument that by backing away down a corridor from the intruder who broke into her home and was threatening her life, she had premeditated shooting him! Utter, arrant nonsense under the Castle Doctrine of course; but 12 good and true subjects of the Peoples Democratic Republic of Massachusetts bought this load of horseshit and convicted her. She was sentenced to life in prison, which at her age would have meant life. It was at this point that outraged friends of hers brought the case to the attention of Argosy and asked for help from The Court of Last Resort.

Gardner and his fellow lawyers took the case on and filed an appeal. They got it in front of an appeals court that was not as bat-brained as the judge in the original case had been. The appeals court ripped the D.A. up one side and down the other for using the poor woman to advance his own political ambitions, threw out the original verdict and ordered her record be expunged and that she be released from prison immediately.

The Peoples Democratic Republic of Massacusetts is very much a nanny-state. Considering that Massachusetts is where the American Revolution began, and that even today schoolkids there learn about the valor of the Minutemen against the Evil English Redcoats, it is more than a little ironic that the people who live there today seem to have all the backbone of a chocolate eclair. When it comes to insisting on the civil rights of The People guaranteed by any Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, they'll be out there protesting with the best of them - except for their Second Amendment rights, that is.

[Dookiebutt]

Now I did see a U-Tube video where a sniper shot the pistol out of some suicidal guys hand. Now that was a shot to disarm.

[boesman82]

Originally Posted by Dookiebutt

Now I did see a U-Tube video where a sniper shot the pistol out of some suicidal guys hand. Now that was a shot to disarm.

I would should to disarm if it I knew that I will not go to court for it. A law enforcement officer has the system to protect him everyone else to bad for us.

[ART338WM]

I think the problem is short version, that you can go over in your head a 1,000,000 x a 1,000,000 what you will do if god forbid you ever have to draw you weapon and use deadly force to defend yourself or a loved one, and you are NOT in your home. The simple truth is you have no way of predicting how a potentially life threatining and or ending situation will play out. Hopefully if you ever find yourself in that situation, it is one that without question has left you absolutely no choice what so ever but to use deadly force, example a attacker armed with a deadly weapon posing an immenent threat to your life or the lives of your loved ones, and not a leagely questionable situation like simply several unarmed attackers posing a threat. The last sinario is my worst fear, because it becomes much, much more difficult for your lawyer to prove you were justified in using deadly force if you are still unharmed after you use any level of force. Even though it is a quite simple matter for several unarmed attackers to do you great boddly harm as well as kill you. Like what happened to Bernard Getz(sp?) in the peoples republic of NYC.
In any event I agree if you find yourself in the aftermath of a shooting, say nothing more than absolutely nessasary to the cops till you have a lawyer present, and make every possable effort to save the person(s) you have shot. And it is a absolute must if you are going to be CCW permit holder and actually carry, you at least speek to a lawyer who is adept in that area of the law and you can call him/her in the event you need to.
Fortunately I live in Indiana and we have the "Castle Law" in effect that states in simple terms that you are not requiered to retreat Like in Illinois) in any mannor once you become threatened with immenent harm to yourself or your loved ones, you may use deadly force.

[ShawnF]

My stance on this subject is that if i have to draw a weapon, it is to stop the threat presenting, and if that threat requires me to draw a gun, god help the one on the other side.