How many do you shoot?

Two may not do it and all in the mag may be too many. Fired as many as it takes to end the threat. I am used to double taps so I hope that I am accurate enough that it will be enough. If not, I will most likely have the time to take a nice aimed shot and place it exactly where I want it.

Just remember we are going to have to explain our actions in court.
 
The only reason you are shooting in the first place is because you are in immediate danger from a threat. You fire until there is no longer a threat.

-Dane
 
While driving a motor vehicle on a public road ...

... You suddenly find yourself facing an emergency situation which requires you to take action ... and the action you determine which will best serve your needs to save your life, based upon what you reasonably know at that moment, requires the application of the brakes. (Of course, the best action might be proper control of the throttle and/or judicious steering - like lane displacement - instead of the "B" word, but let's just say that some sort of braking is appropriate in this hypothetical situation ...

How many times do you apply the brakes ... how hard ... and for how long?

Circumstances may vary.

Actions generally have consequences.
 
You should fire as needed to stop the threat. You should NOT fire a fixed number of shots simply because you were forced to engage. If merely drawing the gun causes the assailant to run then you don't fire. If the first shot ends the threat, shooting two more is not legal. If the second shot stops the attack, following up with a head shot is certainly not warranted or legal.
Click to expand...

Has anyone here been in a defensive shooting situation and had to deal with this? Seriously, not being smart-aleck, I'd like to know. (I have not. I had a little bit of security type training in the Navy, and I've thought about it a lot since getting a CWP). I think most here would agree "shoot until the threat is stopped" whether that's one or all of the rounds in your piece.

What I wonder about is how quickly or how slowly one of these scenes would play out. To an outside and objective observer I think a typical self-defensive shooting is over and done with inside a few seconds. To the person defending him/herself I suspect it feels like ages. Given the surge of intense fear, excitement, and fight/flight chemicals the body will be experiencing, in my mind's eye I see things unfolding as I'd shoot, wouldn't be sure of the bad guy's response, in fact I might not be able to tell if or where I hit him, so shoot again, etc etc. Given the intensity of the moment, to an outside observer it might look like "bang bang bang bang" when to me it would be "shoot, observe, still hasn't stopped him so shoot again".

Thus I could see myself shooting once and waiting way too long after to ascertain whether or not I'd gotten him to stop, or at the other end of the spectrum being so in fear for my life that it'd be bang-bang-bang until the gun was empty. Anyone have any thoughts on this? I guess what I'm trying to say is I'd intend to do what most people agree is right, shoot only until the threat stops, but while actually fighting off an attack I wonder how well I'd be able to accurately tell what's going on.
 
Squid, I've had a shotgun pointed at me from 25' away, and let me tell you, it really starts the adrenalin going!!! At that point, I pulled my duty weapon (I was a security officer at the time) and it ended up being a standoff until he dropped the weapon. I've also been in one situation when I had to pull my CCW piece, but didn't have to use it as the potential assailant stopped in his tracks and went away. That got the heart rate up, too. I had all the slack on the triggers taken up in both cases. We've all seen video of trained cops having to shoot, firing 5 rounds, and missing with all 5 due to adrenalin and the perp moving. I think my first shot would come slowly (assessing the threat), but the next would be in rapid succession if the threat was still there. The first slow shot would allow me to assess, get a good shooting grip/stance, and aim carefully unless the situation developed too rapidly for that. Our CWP instructor told us we might end up just pulling our piece and shooting like Reed and McCoy on Adam-12, from the low-grip stance. One-handed, even, or cross body; and he suggested we also practice these methods until we were comfortable with them.

All any of us can hope for is we calm down and stop shaking long enough to negate the threat effectively.

Gerald
 
I think most here would agree "shoot until the threat is stopped" whether that's one or all of the rounds in your piece.
Click to expand...
Which would be exactly the correct thing to do.

Here's the point I was trying to make with my earlier post. Booby traps are illegal because they apply deadly force without a human making the decision. The law requires that there be a reasonable human making reasonable decisions operating a deady force tool.

If we program ourselves to always respond exactly the same way to a threat (e.g. draw then fire X shots automatically) then once the engagement begins we become nothing more than a booby trap until our "programmed" shot sequence is over. Certainly we make the decision to draw, but at that point, it's all simply a matter of programming. I don't think that's wise.

Statistics show that over 80% of all self-defense gun uses are successfully resolved by merely showing the gun. What that says to me is if a person programs himself that when he presents his gun he automatically fires, over 80% of the time he will be firing at a person who would have given up without a single shot being fired.

Likewise, another 10% or so of successful self-defense gun uses end after a single shot has been fired whether or not a serious injury has been dealt. If a person automatically fires 2 or 3 shots then clearly at least some of the time they're doing so when they don't need to and therefore shouldn't have.

It's good to practice, it's good to have a plan, but we can't oversimplify to the point that our responses become so automatic that we're not assessing the threat as the situation progresses.

MORE to the point, it's probably not the best idea to publicly announce that if you're forced to use a gun you're automatically going to draw and shoot X shots aimed here and then X shots aimed there, etc. In the unlikely event that you ever do get involved in a deadly force scenario, a statement like that will not back up your assertions that you only used the minimum amount of deadly force required to insure your safety as the law typically requires...
 
If the first shot ends the threat, shooting two more is not legal. If the second shot stops the attack, following up with a head shot is certainly not warranted or legal.
Click to expand...

All this is contingent on your being aware that the threat has been negated. Reaction time, lack of response by the threat to vital hits, tunnel vision, etc. all come into play so that even after the threat ends, you may keep shooting because you either 1) don't know the threat ended or 2) are unable to stop firing off an additional round.
 
act the way you want to be able to report it

I fired because I knew my life was in danger. I stopped when I knew my life was not in danger. I would like to say more but I am not sure what my rights are under the law till I speak with my attorney.

I believe this is appropriate conduct. I hope it never happens.
 
Semantics

In our military unit, our orders were "shoot to kill." Not wound, not maim, not "to stop the threat," but to kill.

In our federal law enforcement agency, we were taught and trained to "shoot to neutralize the threat." That sounds much nicer in a courtroom and more pleasing to the folks who are typically afraid of their own shadow.

Either way, military or civilian, the result of your shooting someone is typically the same.

Having smelled way more gunsmoke than I ever would've cared to, I'll NEVER advocate having a "pre-planned" number of shots you'll fire, shot placement, etc.

Every situation is different. I speak from firsthand experience. In some situations, your gun is not the first one out and firing and you're damn lucky to hit the bad guy ANYWHERE with ANY NUMBER of rounds. Other times, you may be in complete control, but the person(s) facing you down decide to become suicidal idiots--obviously shot placement is factor number one.

And then there are the situations of is it one bad guy or four bad guys who are trying to do you harm? If you've trained to mozambique every time you see a human silouhette and you're carrying a six-gun when four guys attack, you have a bit of a dilemma on your hands.

Don't laugh. I've seen it happen with some cops and agencies that train one way and one way only.

My advice, in a civilian situation, would not be to "fire until the threat is no longer a threat." My advice would be to fire until you can safely haul ass to a safe location.

Jeff
 
Time to add a spare mag or two to my carry routine then. Excellent advice, TSR. Somehow I don't think 8 is going to cut it for me anymore.
 
All this is contingent on your being aware that the threat has been negated.
Click to expand...
Correct. If the threat has been negated but you reasonably believe it has not then you would not be penalized for continuing to fire.
In our military unit, our orders were "shoot to kill." Not wound, not maim, not "to stop the threat," but to kill.

In our federal law enforcement agency, we were taught and trained to "shoot to neutralize the threat." That sounds much nicer in a courtroom and more pleasing to the folks who are typically afraid of their own shadow.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, I submit that there is more difference than just how it sounds.

The military's job is to kill enemies and break enemy materiel. Plain and simple, there it is. Law Enforcement's job is to protect and serve. Sometimes people get killed by LE, but it is incidental to the main goal of keeping the law-abiding safe.

Self-defense has similar goals to the LE job. The point isn't that you're reducing the number of enemy combatants, it's that you're protecting the good guys.
My advice, in a civilian situation, would not be to "fire until the threat is no longer a threat." My advice would be to fire until you can safely haul ass to a safe location.
Click to expand...
Excellent point. Sometimes we forget that evacuation can be a very effective means of preserving life.

If I could plagiarize you somewhat I'd say that the proper tactic would be to fire until the threat is no longer a threat OR until you can safely haul ass to a safe location. ;)
 
Center mass

Minimum two center mass. If that doesnt stop, one to the head, also the pelvic area, the small triangle that runs from your crotch to your hips. Taking a direct hit there releases a large amount of water from your body and causes most people to go into shock. Center mass is always a good starting point though. I would not use all your ammo though, if you miss or minimally wound him he might get angry and you may have to make another controlled shot. Less likely he'll charge if you still have a couple of rounds, plus he may have a buddy nearby.
 
It is one thing to give the right answer in a forum, but are we training that way?
Click to expand...

Great point.

You have to train to shoot until the threat stops. Just about every pistol match I've been to, you put two shots into the "A zone" of each cardboard target and then move to the next target. You'll put only one into a metal reactionary target. A lot of range training is just two to the chest and one to the head and the pistol comes down to the ready, scan and holster (real easy to do with a non moving six foot tall target facing directly towards you at 7 yards and not firing back).

Change it up and shoot different strings of shots and run failure to stop drills. Two to the chest might get the job done but I wouldn't bet on it. You will do exactly what you've trained to do in a confrontation and you don't want your pistol dropping to the ready position or to the holster when deadly fire is still desperately needed to stop the threat.
 
I've seen this type of training done with a setup as elaborate as a remote control moving target that stops when the controller deems you've shot it enough in the proper zone. You could do it more simply with an assistant who pulls the target stand over with a rope (or otherwise signals you) when you've scored enough COM hits.
 
I have seen this training done a few ways. Of course you have the timed targets that face and then turn away. And you have the military pop up targets. But the most practical way I have seen for the average person is to use a balloon and a T shirt. You cut a hole in the back of the shirt, blow up the balloon and stick it in the shirt. Then slip the end of the balloon through the hole and nail it to a tree, wall or something else at human hight. It is not enough to shoot the shirt, you have to hit the chest area to pop the balloon and get the shirt to drop. If you want to ad to it then have two balloons with one sticking out the top for the head. Any other good ideas?
 
I've used the balloon and t-shirt method on several occasions and it's not bad. However, I believe that balloons in the torso could also create a false sense of when to stop shooting. If you put the round right where it needs to go, the balloon pops and you stop shooting. If you put a handgun round into an attacker's heart, that is no guarantee that you have stopped him. He may have many seconds left in which to "stop" you (Miami FBI shootout). His head also may not be a target of opportunity at the moment you need it.

I really like the idea mentioned about using a partner to drop the target when enough good hits have been placed. I think that is an excellent idea and could be done with some imagination and minimal effort. This would allow for the constant changing up of the number of rounds and shot placement so that no one drill is overly imprinted (to the exclusion of others) into the mid-brain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top