• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Why we shoot to stop the threat?

sawah

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
436
Location
Virginia
In addition, it's prudent to never refer to your firearm as a 'weapon'. It's a tool, a firearm, a handgun.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
Personal opinion: people prefer not to think of themselves as having a motivation to take the life of another human being - that's a horrible concept to have to realize, to "make real in the mind". We don't like to think about horrible things, and we don't like to think of ourselves as the sort of folks who do horrible things. But each of us is really capable of anything anyone else has done, given the right motivation and circumstances. But our instinct for self preservation protects us from ideas that do violence to our sense of self, so we like to think we would not have participated in the attempted mass extinction of Jews in Europe in the late 'thirties and 'forties. None of us would equate himself to Vlad the Impaler or Stalin. Well, we may not be psychopathic, but like my Grandmother used to say, "You ain' no better'n me, and if you think y'are, I'll KNOCK YA DOWN!!!" And she was right, I'm no better than anyone else. I think we're all pretty much capable of anything. I've seen a lot of people I'd have otherwise thought were pretty decent folks who raped their children, robbed banks, kidnapped people, etc. - a characteristic of the occupation.

And, as J.B.Books, played by John Wayne, said in "The Shootist", "It isn't always being fast, or even accurate that counts; it's being willing. I found out early that most men, regardless of cause or need, aren't willing; they blink an eye or draw a breath before they pull the trigger...I won't."

My notion is that unless you are willing and have a need to kill, you shouldn't even think about the gun, much less make any reference to it or touch it. If you have need to kill, then face that fact squarely, and do your best. If you shoot with a willingness to kill, you will probably be successful in stopping the threat. And if there's no necessity, just calm down and walk away.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
If wounding kills and killing wounds, and both stop the event, what is the difference? Why perception - how such is viewed/interpreted by others. Be your own best advocate - chose your words carefully.

This is something I endeavor to do but like most, am not always successful at it. And in today's world, more is made of verbal "slights" than one might guess.

My point was simple and I thought well expressed. Hopefully, my intent was understood. If not.... well, what can I say? In the final analysis, what matters is unto one's self.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
This is something I endeavor to do but like most, am not always successful at it. And in today's world, more is made of verbal "slights" than one might guess.

My point was simple and I thought well expressed. Hopefully, my intent was understood. If not.... well, what can I say? In the final analysis, what matters is unto one's self.

Was not being critical - am in agreement with you.

Words do matter and yes be true unto one's own self.........at least as far as we can afford to be.:p
 

sawah

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
436
Location
Virginia
My notion is that unless you are willing and have a need to kill, you shouldn't even think about the gun, much less make any reference to it or touch it. If you have need to kill, then face that fact squarely, and do your best. If you shoot with a willingness to kill, you will probably be successful in stopping the threat. And if there's no necessity, just calm down and walk away.

Many, many instances of potential violence and mayhem have been stopped (self-defense) by the potential victim having had a firearm. They did not shoot anyone. The way I look at it is that I have a firearm because I do not want to be killed by a violent predator, nor do I want to be unable to protect my loved ones from the same fate. Is actually firing the gun necessary? Many times it does not, but if there was no gun available there could/would have been a victim. I'm willing to stop a threat. I'm less willing, nor am I convinced that there always needs to be someone killed.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Aside from "what you say can come back to bite you in the butt in court", look at it this way....

You can shoot to kill, and kill someone without stopping whatever mayhem they intended. Someone gut shot with a .25 may take days to die without medical attention but that won't necessarily stop them from pulling a trigger or slashing with a knife.
On the other hand, you can shoot to stop, and stop someone's actions, without necessarily killing them in the process. Certainly an immediate death stops someone, but......

Which do you want more, to immediately stop someone's actions or their eventual death?
 

Greg30-06

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
30
Location
Washington
v

I do not agree at all with the shoot to wound idea. First of all, If you are just shooting to wound, it doesn't seem to me that your life is in imminent danger. Secondly, and maybe is the Hunter in me, you should never pull the trigger on something with the sole intention of wounding it. To me that would be unethical and inhumane.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
I do not agree at all with the shoot to wound idea. First of all, If you are just shooting to wound, it doesn't seem to me that your life is in imminent danger. Secondly, and maybe is the Hunter in me, you should never pull the trigger on something with the sole intention of wounding it. To me that would be unethical and inhumane.

Don't think anybody is advocating that - it is a long replaced state agency (DOC) mandate.
 

ProShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,663
Location
www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
I've just been taught from the first time I saw a gunnot to even point a Gunn at something you didn't want to kill.

MV5BNjQ0MTYyNzU5N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNTAxMDYxMQ@@._V1._SY317_CR2,0,214,317_.jpg
 

riverrat10k

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
1,472
Location
on a rock in the james river
OK, I guess I should chime in on this thread

Pop also taught me as Greg above was:

1)never, never, never point a gun at a person.
2)If you find yourself in a situation where you must point a gun at someone, don't miss.

I have always taken this to heart, and to mean NO brandishing, NO warning shots, NO muzzle sweeps (loaded or unloaded). Pull or aim the gun at a person only in a life or death or serious bodily harm situation, and be sure your aim is true (including worrying about collateral damage.)

Now, as to what it takes to stop the threat, I will reveal a more personal situation and some anecdotal insight to an actual shooting.

A friend of mine is the "boyfreind" in the June 2 domestic shooting in Hanover. The estranged husband took his father's semi-automatic rifle (reported as an "assault rifle" in the press; I have yet to determine if it was an AK-47 or SKS type variant) and went gunning for his wife.

Despite facing an armed attacker and being armed himself, my friend is heard on the 911 call pleading with the husband to "think of your children, you don't have to do this" before the first shots were fired. We can all be damned tough through our keyboards, but I think that for most individuals, in this country anyway, it is difficult to bring oneself to shoot another human being. My friend is a stone killer when it comes to deer, birds, and small game, but even with his experience, his instinct was to try to stop ANY shots from being fired.

Unfortunately, he failed.

My friend was shot six times (still to be determined if the rounds were 5.56mm or 7.62mm) and was the only one conscious when emergency personel arrived. His right forearm was shattered, he had a sucking chest wound an inch from his heart in his right chest, and four more wounds to his legs, one serious. He had rolled onto his right side to keep his lungs more clear of blood. He was probably still a "threat".

The husband was found unconcious after recieving a glancing shot to the head and a near fatal shot to the chest by my friends .38 revolver. Don't know if the .38's were hollow points or not yet. By then, he was no longer a "threat".

The woman was dead on the scene with multiple wounds from the rifle.

What I take from all this is that it may be damn hard to actually pull the trigger on someone, and if you do, that some people are tough as nails and difficult to "stop".

FWIW.
 
Last edited:

Tanner

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
474
Location
Chesterfield, Virginia, United States
While I see a bit of paranoia about the word kill I do agree that its invokes some kind of reaction that would make people wonder if you were just looking for a reason to kill. Since I am still new to all this I guess I have bought into the mind set that hollywood undoubtedly puts out there. So from what I deduce from posts so far is why take a chance? I did not want to kill the aggressor but he put me in the position where I had to do something to stop him or els I would have been seriously hurt or killed or he would have seriously hurt or killed someone els. I shot him to stop him. Unfortunately he died as a result of HIS actions.

Am I getting the big picture yet?


This also brings up a nother point. Is there a difference between protecting yourself and protecting someone els?
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Many, many instances of potential violence and mayhem have been stopped (self-defense) by the potential victim having had a firearm. They did not shoot anyone. The way I look at it is that I have a firearm because I do not want to be killed by a violent predator, nor do I want to be unable to protect my loved ones from the same fate. Is actually firing the gun necessary? Many times it does not, but if there was no gun available there could/would have been a victim. I'm willing to stop a threat. I'm less willing, nor am I convinced that there always needs to be someone killed.

In my very biased opinion, as influenced by a number of attorneys, judges, juries and folks who wound up in prison I have come to the following conclusions -
- if there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury and you have a firearm you could use to stop that threat, go ahead and use it. If the threat is there but not imminent, you should not be using the firearm.
- if, in the split seconds after you unlimber your firearm the imminent threat (a) ceases to be an imminent threat or (b) ceases to be a threat at all, stop if you can. (Thank goodness there is also expert witness testimony that demonstrates why someone might not be able to stop in time.)
- if the need to use your firearm for self defense ceases, put it away. Keep your eyes and ears open and your mind active, but if there is no longer an imminent threat there is no justification for having the thing out.

Having come to those conclusions is one thing. Having the ability to act in keeping with them remains, at this time, an untested theory.

stay safe.
 

mohawk001

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
113
Location
Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA
Further, if presenting the firearm stops the threat then the threat is over and the situation should move on. I know the naysayers will yell "brandishing" but if the threat is stopped...

The way I understand it, brandishing is allowed in some states (I was taught AZ as an example, so if someone can point out a statute saying otherwise then please do). Also, if in the act of pulling and aiming your weapon the BG stops, then as you said, there is no further need to shoot.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
--snip--
This also brings up a nother point. Is there a difference between protecting yourself and protecting someone els?

For all practical intents they are the same. Be careful though that you do not jump in to defend the wrong side of an altercation - sometimes it is better to be a good witness. It can be a tough call.
 

F350

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
941
Location
The High Plains of Wyoming
Now suppose the other fellow is wearing body armor. Where do you shoot. Most people say the head but most people in a gun fight couldn't hit someone in the head with a shotgun. That's the same reason you don't shoot to wound.

That leaves major bone structures and the biggest one is the pelvic region. Break those bones and they're going down and killing them is an easy task from there on....or just walking away.

So Tanner....you want to STOP the threat from hurting you. If it happens to die in the process, so be it!

I have had a pelvic fracture suffered in a fall off a ladder; after that experience I decided if 2 to the chest doesn't work I'm dumping the rest of the mag to the pelvis. Only someone totally zonked out on drugs could ignore the pain, and even then the legs quit working.
 
Top