Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Shoot-to-wound advocates watch too much television

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post




    The Seattle GRE looks at "shooting to wound" as an empty-headed Utopian philosophy

    http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m6d2-Shoot-to-wound-advocates-have-watched-too-much-television


    If that doesn't work, try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/n2c2lg



  2. #2
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Great article. Thanks for the reference links too, good reading.

    Have to agree totally, shoot to stop, and shoot the body zones most likely to stop the threat the fastest.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    Am I... Am I actually going to have to agree with Dave Workman? :what:

  4. #4
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    grishnav wrote:
    Am I... Am I actually going to have to agree with Dave Workman? :what:
    Don't do it grishnav!

    Don't destroy a perfect record of opposition....its not worth it!

  5. #5
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    Good article Dave. I understand the principal of shoot to stop... but the idea that you're not shooting to kill is silly.

    I in no way advocate shooting a guy... then, while he's unconscious bleeding to death, shooting him again... like so many tried to say I was saying... I wasjusttrying to point outthat in a high stress situation (which only the people who were there can tell us about),when only seconds have passed, and you still perceive a threat...shooting a perp again may be a product of adrenaline... for the OKC shooting you reference... only 47 seconds had passed since the first shot to the second round of shots... 47 seconds is hardly enough time for someone who does not do this for a living to discern that the threat has passed... I've seen bullet wounds to the head when I worked in the emergency room and for smaller caliber weapons, they almost don't seem that bad although the bullet sometimes ricochets around the brain a bit pretty much dooming them. But people move after being shot... they may even seem to have their wits about them... even though they may already be brain dead... if the guy had waited 2 or 3 minutes and THEN shot the kid... I'd say charge him with murder.

    As for the whole idea that "Take him out" does not mean kill him is disingenuous. Sharpshooters are trained to kill their target. A center mass shot with a sniper rifle is pretty much going to go right through the heart... and that is pretty much sure death... what does it say about us that we cannot even call a spade a spade?

    I agree on the whole "shoot to wound" nonsense... but if you're going to be aiming a weapon at a human in self defense, and your training was that you shoot center mass with two shots... and if that didn't work, shoot the head. Then, look at the bullets... we're talking about using hollow points which are designed to do the most damage...i.e. kill.

    Look, I realize we live in a society that has a bunch of whiny nattering nabobs who scream for the release of reformed gangbanger murderers out of one side of their mouth and for the prosecution of homeowners and business owners who defend themselves with deadly force out of the other. We also have a society of people where many think you never have to kill... that there is alway another option... and that anyone who kills is a trigger happy nut-job. Unless you're a poor black teen armed robber... and then, you're just lashing out because you've been oppressed all your life... makes you just want to slap them silly
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    Good article Dave. I understand the principal of shoot to stop... but the idea that you're not shooting to kill is silly.


    As for the whole idea that "Take him out" does not mean kill him is disingenuous.
    I agree on the whole "shoot to wound" nonsense... but if you're going to be aiming a weapon at a human in self defense, and your training was that you shoot center mass with two shots... and if that didn't work, shoot the head. Then, look at the bullets... we're talking about using hollow points which are designed to do the most damage...i.e. kill.
    No, I think you have this wrong.
    You are "shooting to stop." Period.
    If that means incapacitate, that's what it means. The perp is no longer a threat, whether he is dead, seriously wounded, clobbered unconscious...he is out of the fight.
    If he IS dead, well, too bad.

    S

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Good article Dave.

    I guess I'll have to stop practicing shooting a gun out of someones hand.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    Dave Workman wrote:
    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    Good article Dave. I understand the principal of shoot to stop... but the idea that you're not shooting to kill is silly.


    As for the whole idea that "Take him out" does not mean kill him is disingenuous.
    I agree on the whole "shoot to wound" nonsense... but if you're going to be aiming a weapon at a human in self defense, and your training was that you shoot center mass with two shots... and if that didn't work, shoot the head. Then, look at the bullets... we're talking about using hollow points which are designed to do the most damage...i.e. kill.
    No, I think you have this wrong.
    You are "shooting to stop." Period.
    If that means incapacitate, that's what it means. The perp is no longer a threat, whether he is dead, seriously wounded, clobbered unconscious...he is out of the fight.
    If he IS dead, well, too bad.

    S
    I guess I'm confused... I was under the assumption that center mass meant center chest... and center chest will penetrate the heart. If everyone trains to shoot center mass... whether they hit center mass or not... they're training to kill. Now is it OK for them to finish a guy off who's unconscious and bleeding, but still alive... to me, it depends... in the heat of the moment... with only seconds having passed since the beginning of the incident... one cannot be expected to assume the threat is over... especially if the perpetrator is still moving... your thoughts will instantly go to "what if I only grazed him... what if he was wearing a ballistic vest.... what if he is moving for a weapon?" All of these questions if asked within the first minute of an encounter are valid and I think that if a person acts on his fear within seconds... yes, even 47 seconds after the beginning of the encounter.... he is justified in doing what he must to stop the perceived threat.If it is many minutes after the beginning of the encounter... then, the story is different... if the perp has been down for three or four minutes without event... one can no longer perceive him as a threat... but I give the benefit of the doubt to the victim and not the perpetrator in any case where the time elapsed is under a minute.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Well, shooting for CoM is what people train to do, but these are not necessarily always fatal wounds.

    Likewise, shooting CoM with a handgun does not always guarantee someone is going down for the count.

    There is no hard and fast and set in stone rule for bullet wounds. Fatal for one person may not be fatal but incapacitating for another.

    It ain't Hollywood, but it is life.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    That is true... while I have never personally shot anyone and hope I never have to... if it comes to an intruder or my family... I'll chose my family.

    I read a story on these forums that described a non-professional gun carrier helping a police officer and having to shoot the assailant many times before he stopped beating the officer. I imagine you shoot until they stop moving towards you or towards a weapon... my instructor back in the 90s when I took my most recent shooting lessons always said... make sure the attacker can no longer threaten you... if he's still moving in your direction... or reaching for anything... shoot first and ask questions later... you don't want him grabbing a gun you didn't see before and shooting you.


    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    58

    Post imported post

    Shooting to Stop (normally by CoM shots) is banking on the fact you take out the central nervous system. So by shooting to stop, you could kill, cause paralysis, or a host of other nasty permanent damage. But you might save your own skin.

    Faster you stop some one trying to take your life the better.



  12. #12
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    RSO1911 wrote:
    Shooting to Stop (normally by CoM shots) is banking on the fact you take out the central nervous system. So by shooting to stop, you could kill, cause paralysis, or a host of other nasty permanent damage. But you might save your own skin.

    Faster you stop some one trying to take your life the better.

    Usually it's considered a bad thing to shoot someone in the back. CoM shots are attempting to shoot the heart, not the spine.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    As Washingtonian knows, I agree with Dave's comments on "shoot to stop".

    However, whoever came up with the idea of "shoot to wound" is an idiot. "Shoot to kill" may not be smart in the courtroom, but "shoot to wound" is just ******* retarded, anywhere. :quirky

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    I like many gun owners haven't had the advantage of military gun training or even tactical training. I would like to think I would just shoot to stop, but research and talking to people who have been in fire fights my conclusion is that adrenaline and the primal urge for survival takes over. A calm collected 2 shots to body and one to head, isn't the reality in most civilian situation. Many shoot until the gun is empty. Prosecutors try to make this out to be a bad thing, but its not when it is your life on the line.

    So in my opinion you have to be prepared for the fact that when you pull the trigger you will kill someone, and not think I will shoot to stop, you will waste precious nano seconds trying to figure out how to wound and not kill. One reason I open carry, less likely I will ever have to make the decision to pull the trigger.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    58

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    RSO1911 wrote:
    Shooting to Stop (normally by CoM shots) is banking on the fact you take out the central nervous system. So by shooting to stop, you could kill, cause paralysis, or a host of other nasty permanent damage. But you might save your own skin.

    Faster you stop some one trying to take your life the better.

    Usually it's considered a bad thing to shoot someone in the back. CoM shots are attempting to shoot the heart, not the spine.
    What are you talking about? Did I say shoot them in the back? I plainly said CoM shots aiming for the central nervous system. That means good aim, and penetration. The central nervous system also includes the brain. It means shooting them as they come at you, and having a gun with enough penetration to drive through thier body, and clip thier spine (which drops them like a puppet with thier strings cut!).

    CoM shots are NOT(NOT!) shots aimed for the heart! A bullet hitting the heart does not have as good of chance instantly stopping an aggressor. In fact, depending on caliber, and how it goes through the heart, it may not even slow them down! Especially if the person is jacked up on drugs, in a rage, or has been shot before (or is very muscular, and the round does not penetrate).



  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    svg,

    So in my opinion you have to be prepared for the fact that when you pull the trigger you will kill someone
    Change that "will" to "might" and I'm with you... but...

    and not think I will shoot to stop, you will waste precious nano seconds trying to figure out how to wound and not kill.
    NO! "Shoot to stop" is not just another way of saying "Shoot to wound"; it has nothing to do with how you shoot, but rather why. This is directly pertinent with your interface to the legal system, as the legal system considers motive to be vitally important in relation to culpability: accidently kill someone, and it's manslaughter. Do it in the heat of the moment, it's murder 2. Plan it for several weeks, and now you're up for murder 1. But do it in response to an unprovoked attack? Now it's a justifiable homicide.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    376

    Post imported post

    Stop the threat is the bottomline. I think we all agree with that.

    In the article, the sniper shot center mass. The sniper stopped the threat of the guy shooting at the police helicopter.... as ifthe guy was able to down it - think of a helicopter crashing into a neighborhood - not good at all.

    The shot so happened to cause death but in the end it was and did stop the threat. You can argue if he was shot in the head and with a sniper rifle at say 50-75 yards that's not a hard target to hit for a sniper. But on the otherhand if you are thinking of asking a sniper to shoot the gun out of his hands than that's just Hollywood.

    Yes, it can be done in a controlled environment but not in the real world. In a controlled environment we'll just have the BG hold really really still and draw a bullseye on his shoulder or gun.

    For most of us we're talking about using our sidearms not a scoped-out rifle. To say you'll shoot center mass is one thing (which is a good size target). What you actually hit is another. I do advocate to shoot center mass.

    You're aiming at center mass so to increase your probability of stopping the threat.

    To say I'll shoot to wound... meaning shoot an extremity or grazing shot is laughable. We've allbeen to the range and at a stagnet target at7-10 yards (21-30 feet)what do you see downrange? Most people are all over the place in their shot placement. They may be aiming at that big bullseye but what they're hitting is anything but.

    So, your a "good shot?" You've been shooting for 30+ years and well experienced? I'll add afactor for you: Shoot on the move, under stress using time or something to get your heart up to speed. I say let'stake you to an IDPA or USPSA match and we'll see how well you can shoot. It's an eye opener. :what:
    Young Kim, NRA Endowment Member
    NRA Certified Instructor (pistol)
    NRA Range Safety Officer

    www.shootonthemove.org

    "Shoot Safetly, Shoot Often and Share Your Sport!"
    Jim Scoutten, Shooting USA

  18. #18
    Regular Member GreatWhiteLlama's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bothell, Washington, USA
    Posts
    287

    Post imported post

    oldkim wrote:
    But on the otherhand if you are thinking of asking a sniper to shoot the gun out of his hands than that's just Hollywood.


    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...43217664527036
    "...our media are palace eunuchs gazing avidly at the harem of power and stroking their impotent pens in time to the rape of our liberties."
    -Sarah Hoyt

    "America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
    -Claire Wolfe

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    376

    Post imported post

    Good video: I didn't say it couldn't be done but look at the cirumstances. The guy was sitting and pretty much holding still. Basically it's a situation where this guy wanted attention. He wasn't actively threatening, the sniper was in position and the guy held still enough and the sniper go the green light to attempt the shot.

    I imagine the sniper was about 40 yards at best, maybe closer. The circumstances were good and fortunately for the guy the shot was taken. Change the scenario around. Have the guy moving around, waving and threatening and you've got a whole different shot placement - center mass.
    Young Kim, NRA Endowment Member
    NRA Certified Instructor (pistol)
    NRA Range Safety Officer

    www.shootonthemove.org

    "Shoot Safetly, Shoot Often and Share Your Sport!"
    Jim Scoutten, Shooting USA

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    kparker wrote:
    svg,

    So in my opinion you have to be prepared for the fact that when you pull the trigger you will kill someone
    Change that "will" to "might" and I'm with you... but...

    and not think I will shoot to stop, you will waste precious nano seconds trying to figure out how to wound and not kill.
    NO! "Shoot to stop" is not just another way of saying "Shoot to wound"; it has nothing to do with how you shoot, but rather why. This is directly pertinent with your interface to the legal system, as the legal system considers motive to be vitally important in relation to culpability: accidently kill someone, and it's manslaughter. Do it in the heat of the moment, it's murder 2. Plan it for several weeks, and now you're up for murder 1. But do it in response to an unprovoked attack? Now it's a justifiable homicide.
    I agree with what you are saying but I was sayin "will kill" because it stresses the seriousness of the action pulling your trigger. Like thinking if I drink and drive I will kill someone (bad analogy I know) makes it more serious in your mind than saying if I drink and drive a might kill someone. I have no desire to kill but if I pull the trigger and I am aiming center mass it probably will happen.

    Second part again I agree with you but in those precious nano seconds you can't think about just stopping you need to just shoot. If you are thinking how can I stop this guy with minimal damage you are thinking about just wounding him and you are wasting time. And I was only talking about the unprovoked or provoked attacks on our persons or somebody else. On looking back I didn't quite word that last part correctly.

    I am just saying in the heat of the moment people, unless they are very highly trained, and even then not always the case. Will shoot until the percieved threat is done. I would like to think I am better than that and will be tactical and by the book. But the reality of the situation is most people are not.



    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    If you are thinking how can I stop this guy with minimal damage
    You keep bringing this up, but I'm telling you it's a complete strawman--nobody but NOBODY in the self-defense community advocates this.

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    kparker wrote:
    If you are thinking how can I stop this guy with minimal damage
    You keep bringing this up, but I'm telling you it's a complete strawman--nobody but NOBODY in the self-defense community advocates this.
    The title of this thread is dealing withshoot to wound or did I miss something. I know noone here advocates this. I was responding to the title and some of the posts here with my own opinions on that topic. I am agreeing its retarded to think I am going to shoot to wound. why waste time thinking that. That was the gist of my post. You can't think shoot to wound. That is movie myth stuff. I don't keep bringing it up I responded to you bringing it up after my post. Trying to explain what I thought might have been a badly worded post on my part, all relating to the topic of this thread, wich is [shadow=red]'shoot to wound advocates watch too much television'[/shadow].
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  23. #23
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    kparker wrote:
    If you are thinking how can I stop this guy with minimal damage
    You keep bringing this up, but I'm telling you it's a complete strawman--nobody but NOBODY in the self-defense community advocates this.
    The title of this thread is dealing withshoot to wound or did I miss something. I know noone here advocates this. I was responding to the title and some of the posts here with my own opinions on that topic. I am agreeing its retarded to think I am going to shoot to wound. why waste time thinking that. That was the gist of my post. You can't think shoot to wound. That is movie myth stuff. I don't keep bringing it up I responded to you bringing it up after my post. Trying to explain what I thought might have been a badly worded post on my part, all relating to the topic of this thread, wich is 'shoot to wound advocates watch too much television'.
    Amen!

    As do "one shot wonders" who think people get hit with a .45 and go flying back 5 feet and through a window and die instantly. Unless its the "good guy" then they wind up in the hospital the next day smiling with their arm in a sling. :quirky

    The human body is able to withstand amazing amounts of damage. Not only is a leg or arm not a vital area, but the body can auto adjust by shutting off blood flow and pain to the limbs. Shoot where the bullet has the chance to do the most damage with the best chance to stop the threat, period.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    58

    Post imported post

    oldkim wrote:
    Good video: I didn't say it couldn't be done but look at the cirumstances. The guy was sitting and pretty much holding still. Basically it's a situation where this guy wanted attention. He wasn't actively threatening, the sniper was in position and the guy held still enough and the sniper go the green light to attempt the shot.

    I imagine the sniper was about 40 yards at best, maybe closer. The circumstances were good and fortunately for the guy the shot was taken. Change the scenario around. Have the guy moving around, waving and threatening and you've got a whole different shot placement - center mass.
    I believe the full story on that shot is that the marksman was able to zero his rifle at a gravel pit before getting into position. There by shooting a zero'd rifle at a known range.


    Still takes skill timing and luck, but no more than shooting at a paper target in a breeze.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •