Shoot to kill? Your opinions on self defense...

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DPSproles

New member
OK--I am new to the self defense arena with regerds to handguns. I have been a "lurker" for months and about to purchase my first handgun in a LONG time, and this is not really about the gun, caliber, etc..it is a deeper issue than that. I am wanting your opinions on the concept of "shooting to kill" with regards to self defense.

ASSUMING: you are legally carrying a CCW and that the BG is showing a viable threat to your life...do you:

A. Shoot to disable and run?
B. Shoot to kill the SOB?
C. Draw your weapon and inform him of your intent?
D. Shoot and figure it our later?
E. Other?

NOW, I do NOT think the right answer is "C" or really "D", but the other options are the ones that I struggle with. IF I have a BG that is confronting me with a deadly weapon and I feel that the lives of myself and family are in danger what do I do? SO, do I shoot him and drop him and hold him under gun point until the cops arrive or do I shoot center of mass until he stops moving and wait until the coroner shows up?

I am a Christian and have conflicting feelings about this. Do I struggle with defending my family or myself? NOT AT ALL! Do I struggle with killing the guy that is intending harm to my wife, son and daughter...NOT AT ALL? DO I struggle with killing him if I can stop him instead of killing him? KINDA'

I would love to have your thoughts and input on this subject. The other thing is that we all might say that we are prepared to shoot to kill, but I wonder how many of us would really have the guts to do that when the rubber meets the road. I am not saying that you are not "man enough" to shoot someone who is threatening your life, but really think about it...could you take a life? Those who say "yeah - no problem" I would doubt they have really dealt with the whole scenario of before, during and after the shooting. There may be some out there that have had to defend themselvesbefore like this, or have some specific training for this type of confrontation, and their answer might be different.

With the purchase of a handgun for self defense, I want to consider ALL of the ramifications of that responsibility. I am interested in your considerations as well...

Thanks--
DPS
 
Well, if you get right down to the fundamental concept as I understand it, your only reason for shooting is to stop the threat to your life (or well-being)or those of you're loved ones. This is the KEY, you're shooting to STOP the threat. To stop the threat required the use of potientially deadly force, i.e. if the goblin dies as a result of the force you had to employ then so be it. You can, and should, continue to fire as long as the threat exists to you or yours. For example, you shoot a goblin threatening you, he drops his weapon and runs away a few yards before falling to the ground, where he rolls around yelling for help. You can't shoot him because he's not a clear threat to you anymore. Alternate scenario, you shoot said goblin and he falls to the ground still clenching his gun and rolls around screaming at you. If you still feel threatened (he does still have the gun, remember), you can and should continue to shoot...as I understand it...I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but that's my best understanding of the law here in Alabama.
 
The only people who never ask themselves these questions are psychos and sociopaths, so you shouldn't worry that you are asking them.

If you find yourself in a life threatening situation, and you have the means to save your life or the life of another with a gun, you shoot to stop the threat. The most effective way to stop the threat is to aim at the attackers center of mass i.e. mid-chest. Shoot until the threat is stopped. In hollyweird everyone gets to read the script ahead of time, and so they know that they can shoot the BG in the leg and the Director will yell "Cut!" and the threat will stop. Here in real life, attacks happen within the span of a couple of eye-blinks. Shooting elsewhere on the attacker invites a host of potential problems like:

1. Miss

2. Miss and hit bystander. Who would you rather take the chance of killing?

3. The old "The only thing worse than an animal, is a wounded animal." scenario. Anyone that attacks innocent people is an animal.

Check with the N.R.A. and find a personal protection course in your area. Gun ranges are another good place to find out about classes, their availability and where you can take them.

Hope this helps.


"There goes a good man, a wise man" (speaking of Moses)
"Yes, but until all men are like him, we'd best to keep our swords sharp."

The Ten Commandments w/ Charlton Heston
 
Well, for starters I ask myself how would my life and my mind change if/after i shoot another person. That's a big IF for me.

Next, i'd say that if the SHTH i would go for center mass, shoot to kill, no hesitations. The figure it out later is terrible but better be alive and kicking to get to that worriesome part.

Inform that you're armed? No way, that's your chance and if you're about to grab you gun the attack is underway so surprise and initiative have already worked for your foe and you need to catch up fast. No warning, just brutality.

These are my 2cts worth, and just pray it never comes to that but be prepared.

NB
 
There are two issues here: legal and personal/moral.

Check with your state for laws regarding use of deadly force. Your state should have a web site with all laws posted. The general rule of law is that you can use force necessary to stop the threat, and that deadly force can only be used if you (in your own opinion) feel a threat to your life or the life of others.

Having said that, I can guarantee a post from someone in Texas, saying that Texas law allows the use of deadly force to protect property after dark. Yes, the after dark part is in the law. You can kill someone in Texas for trying to steal your car, if it is dark outside. And if you can live with it afterward.

From a personal and moral view, I believe that the same principle applies: you have to use enough force to stop the threat. If you pull your gun and the bad guy takes off, you are done. If the threat continues, you need to shoot to stop the threat. Not to wound, not to disable, not to kill. Shoot to stop. In general, that means shoot at the center of mass: it's the easiest to practice, the easiest to hit, and the most likely to stop. I see no moral problem here. I am not trying to kill anyone, I am trying to stay alive, and doing whatever someone forces me to do.

As mentioned, get some training and practice. Don't take one class and feel you are done. I like to take a class at least once a year, more if possible.
 
I think your contemplation is a good thing. The gravity of shooting someone is huge. The implications for your life post shooting are also huge. These things also weigh on my mind when I carry.

That being said, the first thing to do is to understand exactly what your state laws allow. They are different in each state. They are further colored by local prosecutors and politics. In NC, for example, if you shoot and kill someone, regardless of the circumstances, you will be charged with murder. After the investigation, you will either be cleared or prosecuted.

Beyond all of that the simple stats are that 90% of confrontations involving a weapon are at a distance of three feet, involve three shots and last about three seconds.

Most people have absolutely no idea just how stressful it is for a relatively untrained civilian to face potential death from a gun or a BG intent on harming you or yours. Not that it is not stressful for a trained person, like a LEO, but the ability to act in a controlled way is better if you are a professional.

To think you will be so cool as to shoot the perp in the leg as opposed to center of mass or some other chosen placement is pure fantasy. Other instinctive behavior will overcome your best plan. Read up on the OSS studies that were done to determine what shooting style would be most effective for their agents and why they choose point shooting over everything else.

My overriding intent is to escape the situation. To get into a position to run from the problem. Failing that, I am shooting to stop the threat, and if I am the only witness then only I can say when the threat is stopped. If I pull my gun, its going off. If you are within arms reach of me I can take your gun before you can pull the trigger. And you are not the only one the adrenaline is flowing in. The BG is scared too.

So, learn the rules, make your policy and run from trouble whenever possible.
 
Option B. Period. If it comes down to me shooting it's because Mr. BG is trying to kill ME.
That doesn't mean emtying the gun into him if the first or second shot stops the BG. It means I intend the fist shot to kill, because I may not get a second.
I decided long ago: If it's him or me, I'd rather it was him.
 
I think the several books by Masad Ayoub and some others on this link are hard to beat. They give facts from actual cases and the second attack, which is from the court system and the victim's attorneys.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0936279001/for45rodgunclu/002-2695184-4234455

ONE thing I am reminded of, is that your family, if you save them, will then possibly have some years to survive while you are in court and perhaps in jail with lawyer bills, bail, etc.

Good luck in your thinking! I suggest a book shelf that includes most or all of the books on the link above.
 
DPSproles,

In self-defense, the purpose in shooting someone is to incapacitate a BG in the fastest time possible. To make him stop committing violence to you or loved one.

Shoot for center of mass/torso because it is the biggest target and easiest to hit. Bullets into the torso usually results in the fastest incapacitation because of blood loss/organ damage, which is not the same as death. The fact that death may occur is not a part of the equation at this moment.

If you cannot deal with this, perhaps you should not consider firearm ownership. People do own big dogs, etc. But you cannot always take your dog to work, out to dinner, etc.

The choice of firearm ownership is yours, but think about it this way: The BG may also be armed and he isn't restrained by your morals.
 
Shoot to kill

Since the only time you should have to shoot anyone is if they want to take someones life I would answer your question with a yes as far as shooting to kill goes. If there is someone that is trying to take my wifes' life then I see nothing morally wrong with ending their life. They have to take responsibility for their actions. If you point a gun at my wife and then get shot you shouldnt be surprised. Basically Self defense and the defense of innocent people is a good thing both Legally and Morally.
 
Great that you are thinking about it. Keep this in mind: What any person on the board would do or try to do has little relevance. You have to answer the question for yourself. It's your face in the mirror every morning and your family at the breakfast table.

The "moral" decision is personal. Meditate on it. If you have questions, talk to your spiritual advisors (Rabbi, Priest, Minister,...). Discuss the religious/moral implications of actions in this situation.

For legal and tactical advise, PLEASE take classes. Take a home defense class (check with the NRA for availability). Take a CCW course for your state. You can find out about certified courses through your state DOJ/AG or Dept of Consumer Affairs. Also a good tactical shooting course that isn't geared for competition. Finally, pay $150 to sit down with an attorney who is familiar with the laws of your area to give you a briefing and ask questions.

Having done all this and if you decide to accept the responsibility of firearm ownership for defensive purposes: train, train, train in the manor taught to you by qualified instructors.
 
Some really good posts so far. I would add in the morality department a definition of what "deadly force" is. It sometimes can help one come to grips with what will happen:

"Deadly force is the action taken to stop a bad guy's actions which are so terrible that it doesn't matter whether he dies or not as a result of the action taken."

This deffinition covers firearms, knives, baseball bats, 200 lb anvils, etc. It also clarifies the shoot to stop or to kill question - Deadly force is ALWAYS applied to stop. It is just the BG's bad luck that he may die as a result thereof because the best ways to stop him usually are terminal. ;)
 
In my state I am not allowed to draw my weapon unless I am in immediate threat of being killed or maimed.In that case, I would shoot to stop the assailant.In most instances that may mean killing but it would be justified.As far as feeling guilty about killing someone who tried to kill me or my family...right now I can say no, but I have never been in that situation.I do believe that if you have any doubts as to whether or not you can pull that trigger, you should not be carrying.
 
Do not shoot to kill. Remove that term from your vocabulary.

Shoot to stop. To stop the threat. To stop the attack. If death is the result of shooting to stop, so be it.

In some places do not shoot to wound. If you do it may be preceived that you were not in danger high enough to shoot to stop therefore you were not in enough danger to justify shooting.

Carefully read all applicable state and local laws.

If you are going to carry, you owe it to yourself and your family to become aware of the applicable laws AND to become as proficient as possible.

Sam
 
Some good answers. As Sam said, shoot to stop.

There are 3 ways to stop a machine: mechanical failure, hydraulic failure, and electrical failure. This translates into human physiology as defeating bones until mobility is lost, perforating the organism until fluid sufficient to continue operation has been drained, or taking out the control system (CNS).

In some places, deliberately firing at a limb is a crime. It's called shooting to maim.

To quote a religious book, let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. If you have any doubts about your willingness to use violence to stop an attack on yourself or your loved ones, keep any firearms you have under lock and key, and only take them out to visit the range. If you fully consider the depth of your love for your family, and all you would do to protect them, hopefully this will be an easy choice, for it is a choice.

I will use the holy book for your religion to point out your duty: if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of
his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an
infidel. (1 TIM 5:8)
 
Shoot to stop. Learn to shoot accurately and very quickly. A person worth shooting once is worth shooting at least twice, maybe 9 times. The most assured "stop" is caused by the death of the bad person. The quickest physical stop will be the result of some form of central nervous system shutdown. Not all shutdowns are permanent or long lasting, however, and you don't want to walk up to the downed person to assess just how bad they are for that very reason.
 
I have carried a weapon of some kind, usually a hand gun, for over 40 years now. Daily. Everywhere. This long predates Florida's CCW law, and put me in violation of the law most of that time. I have never had to use a gun against a threat. This is somewhat the result of good luck, but more the result of keeping my eyes open, checking my surroundings constantly, and staying out of/away from places that are known by me to be probable sources of confrontation. I decided long ago, that only reason to use a gun would be in defense of my life, or that of another. Property protection is not included here. I also decided lont ago, that if deadly force was ever necessary, the person that precipitated this action had pretty much abrogated his right to life. Wounding him would not cross my mind. Personally, I am more in fear of a criminal with a weapon than a lawyer with a book.
 
Struggle

Sorry, DP, it is going to be a struggle within yourself, but I believe you need to settle that argument for yourself, before you purchase a handgun.

Question is...are you willing to take the life of a person who is threatening to take the life of you or someone you care for? Bear in mind that just because you use a gun does not mean a life will be automatically taken nor will it always stop the threat. (Read a lot of situations in TFL to get a real perspective)

As a fellow Christian, I too went through this dilemma. The other choice, of course, is to totally submit to the assailant, and let whatever happens, happen. This also applies to your wife, your child, anyone else who comes under the reach of the BG. Because once the BG renders you defenseless, than he could do what he wills to your family.

After much internal turmoil...(and reading of the Bible)I came to the understanding that the Lord made each life prescious and holy and therefore you must do your best to combat the evil which tries to take the lives that are prescious.

In self-defense, you do what you need to do to stop a threat to your life and others. With a gun, a self-defense tool,you will try to stop a threat to you and others.

Now the other thing is, read your local laws which set the limits as to where you can and cannot have your weapon on you. Also see if the laws require you to retreat in a situation before you can use deadly force to stop a life threatening person. Know those laws....

REad a lot of what your fellow TFLers write about their experiences and thoughts then you are ready to make an informed decision. Good luck.
 
As everyone else has said you shoot to STOP the threat. It's a fact of anatomy that the shot most likely to stop the threat is also most likely to kill the aggressor. That's his tough friggin' luck, he shoulda got an honest job instead.

As for the ethics of it, I believe that self-defense is a fundamental right in any civilized free society. Without it, you have either anarchy or tyranny. I will shoot to prevent violence being done on myself and my family. I can picture circumstances when I'd fell obligated to do so on behalf of a stranger. If I shoot, I must put the maximum whack on the bad guys quickly, to make them break off their attack. I do NOT believe in "warning shots". If you're justified in drawing the weapon, go straight for center of mass.

Could I kill? They asked me that in the Army. I said yes, and trained to do so. Would I kill to protect myself, my family? Yes. As you say in the original post, no one knows for sure until "the rubber meets the road", but those of us who consider the question in depth are better prepared than those who play ostritch.

Would I feel bad about it afterward? I'd probably suffer post-traumatic stress, but in no way would I feel guilt or remorse, since that would imply that I'd done something wrong. I believe that someone who opens the door to violence has no right to complain when it comes right back at him.

Certainly one's religious beliefs help shape one's answers to these questions. A Quaker or a Zoroastrian would probably say it is unethical to kill, though they too may be uncertain how they'd act with a hoodlum raping their daughter and a .357 handy. I've read some Biblical discussions of this issue and don't think there's anything in Judeo-Christian theology that forbids defending yourself. Since I'm an Atheist, I base my decision on ethical standards instead of scripture, but we come to the same place.

I do want to support the advice that this is a legal issue as well as a moral one. If you ever do draw and fire, you will have to be defensible on both legal and moral grounds. Learn your jurisdiction's laws.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top