Wound or Kill the robber?

[gsusd]

When you had to make a choice to use your gun to defend yourself, what would you do:

1. injure the robber (hit him on stomatch, his right chest...)?
In this case, would you have to pay his medical bill?

2. Hit the robber in the head or his left chest (aka. heart)?
what you've got is a guilty feeling you carry rest of your life.

How many rounds being shot before you stop to check on his "condition": 1, 2, or 3?

[762cavalier]

If you're going to shoot you shoot to kill. Shooting to wound is Hollywood crap.

Shoot until the threat has stopped.As soon as he hits dirt stop shooting.

Seems to me to be better if there is only one side of the story. Yours.

what you've got is a guilty feeling you carry rest of your life.

Deciding to use a gun to defend yourself is a very serious decision and only an option of last resort. If it is him or me, I will find a way to live with the guilt. Depending on what kind of scumbag he is I may not even feel guilty.

[G-Man WC]

If your going to pull it, you better use it! Always shoot to kill. -g

[Vin496]

If you are forced to defend your life or the lives of your family, you should shoot to end the threat.

[thefifthspeed]

Not an easy question to answer because all situations are different.
But...if I'm ever in a situation where my life is in danger I'm shooting to stop the threat. I'm won't be trying to kill or wound, I'll be shooting until the threat is gone.

[liketoshoot]

Not to be crass but, if you are going to debate what to do if you need to pull the gun maybe you should just have a big stick.
I would shoot at center mass of the perp and keep shooting till they dropped.

[tenpercentfirearms]

In before the lock!

Your sole intent in shooting someone else should always be to stop the threat. Period.

Anyone who asks a question like this might not understand that you are not going to have a nice liesurely time like on the range to ask yourself, "Do I want to hit him 2" below the belly button or 2" above the left nipple? Or do I just want to shoot him in the foot? Ah, lets go for #2 and relax, get a good breath, squeeze slowly."

You are going to have less than seconds to assess the situation, react, get on target, and fire before the subject completes their act of threatening your life or the life of others. In that case, you should be aiming for the largest part of their body and shooting until they stop their actions. Once their actions stop, do not render aid, seek cover, and call the police. The subject might not be out of the fight or their buddy might be around the corner.

In the civil suit you should hope this thread doesn't come up that you were seeking council on how best to kill someone and so when their client accidently walked into the wrong house, you could have asked them to leave, but you wanted to kill someone instead. Or maybe you just wanted to wound them because you are a sadistic duck and wanted to watch them squirm. That was some premediated murder as we can see from this thread.

Me, I don't want to kill anyone. I want to live in peace and harmony for the rest of my life and I want to help little children live better lives and aide my fellow citizens when they are down and out. I would only resort to harming someone when I had absolutely no other choice in order to preserve innocent life. And only then would I seek to stop their actions and I pray they don't have to die over their choice.

[CSACANNONEER]

You never shoot to wound or to kill! You shoot to nuetralize the threat. You always aim for center of mass and keep firing until you make sure the threat no longer exists. How would it look if you had to go to court and you testified that you were shooting to kill? or, even shotting to wound someone? If that is the reason that you are using a gun, you better get rid of it. The ONLY reason that you should ever use a gun on another human being is to protect yourself or someone else!

[Air]

Shoot until the threat is eliminated.

[cxr]

shoot the hostage!!!


lol.. thats my favorite part of the whole movie

[gwl]

Not to beat a dead horse. Never say you are "shooting to kill" or "shooting wound". You ALWAYS shoot to stop the threat. Aim center mass.

[AngelDecoys]

In before the lock!

Your sole intent in shooting someone else should always be to stop the threat. Period.

Exactly. Stating you would shoot to kill, implies intent. If a man can cover 20-30 ft in under a second, you're not going to have time to think about location. You'll rely on whatever training you already have and react.

And honestly, do you really want the person dead? Or just want that person to stop and go away?

[eta34]

You are shooting to stop the threat. Shooting for center mass is the most practical, as it offers the largest target. Shooting him in the trigger finger requires expert precision that you may not have, especially in a high stress situation. Coincidentally, center mass contains many vital organs that may be damaged, hopefully rendering the criminal unable to continue his assault.

[Creampuff]

As stated multiples times, shoot to stop the threat, and shoot the hostage.

Remember if you tried to shoot to wound, a shot to the leg, doesn't translate to a limp for life - a shot to the leg could nick the femoral artery and he/she would bleed out. A shot to dead center of mass could miss all the major organs/arteries/spine, exit out and your threat would still be a threat. Regardless I would still go for center of mass, but there are no guaranteed "death" shots, and "wound" shots.

Or you could do the old Barnabie Jones style - where with a 2" snub revolver he could shot the gun out of the hands of the suspect 30 yards away .

[Blacktail 8541]

In before the lock!

Your sole intent in shooting someone else should always be to stop the threat. Period.

enough said