Shoot to kill or just injure?

[pismoe]

and shooting to Stop can't be done by merely winging the attacker or shooting him in the leg or balls 'hoping' that he stops the attack because he is in some pain or distress . Shooting to Stop is the proper legal terminology I think . Also , precise shooting is pretty hard to do while a couple to the chest and one to the head is a better plan . Remember that the goal is to Positively STOP the attack Sealy !!

 

[sealybobo]

Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.

proper terminology and thinking is that a person 'Shoots to STOP' sealy !!

Strange how we got away from the old west ways and now are falling back into that kind of atmosphere.

We are still a very young immature uneducated primitive species. Not much separate us from animals in fact some ways were worse.

Would a squirrel kill another squirrel for stealing a nut? You would.

 

[pismoe]

Just the way it is Sealy , Shoot to Stop versus Shoot to Kill and really just a legal distinction I think [ask a lawyer or cop] . Shooting to Stop will quite often kill but better to be shooting with the 'Intention' to Stop rather than shooting with the 'Intention' to KILL . As far as the squirrels , yeah , they are just so much more smarter than people I guess !!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.

Isn't so much you shoot to kill as what you're trained to shoot at represents the bigger part of the human body - the torso. Under combat stress hands shake, people make poor decisions, eyesigh can be impaired, etc. so trying to leg a guy isn't going to work as well as going for the bigger target. And considering how often even trained shooters miss the bigger target, asking people to go for a limb isn't realistic.

 

[sealybobo]

Just the way it is Sealy , Shoot to Stop versus Shoot to Kill and really just a legal distinction I think [ask a lawyer or cop] . Shooting to Stop will quite often kill but better to be shooting with the 'Intention' to Stop rather than shooting with the 'Intention' to KILL . As far as the squirrels , yeah , they are just so much more smarter than people I guess !!

I know in the real world you shoot to stop I just would like to believe a cop or i could shoot low mass and stop them with one shot to the stomach but we're taught to empty the barrel to prove you were scared. A lot of these conservative gun lovers seem to glow when they think about the opportunity to "stop" someone.

 

[sealybobo]

Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.

Isn't so much you shoot to kill as what you're trained to shoot at represents the bigger part of the human body - the torso. Under combat stress hands shake, people make poor decisions, eyesigh can be impaired, etc. so trying to leg a guy isn't going to work as well as going for the bigger target. And considering how often even trained shooters miss the bigger target, asking people to go for a limb isn't realistic.

Stomach instead of chest? Dont bs me. You aren't on trial here. You can be honest here.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.

Isn't so much you shoot to kill as what you're trained to shoot at represents the bigger part of the human body - the torso. Under combat stress hands shake, people make poor decisions, eyesigh can be impaired, etc. so trying to leg a guy isn't going to work as well as going for the bigger target. And considering how often even trained shooters miss the bigger target, asking people to go for a limb isn't realistic.

Stomach instead of chest? Dont bs me. You aren't on trial here. You can be honest here.

Snipers shoot to kill. Special Forces too. Everyone else is just sorta winging it.

 

[sealybobo]

Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.

Isn't so much you shoot to kill as what you're trained to shoot at represents the bigger part of the human body - the torso. Under combat stress hands shake, people make poor decisions, eyesigh can be impaired, etc. so trying to leg a guy isn't going to work as well as going for the bigger target. And considering how often even trained shooters miss the bigger target, asking people to go for a limb isn't realistic.

Stomach instead of chest? Dont bs me. You aren't on trial here. You can be honest here.

Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.

Isn't so much you shoot to kill as what you're trained to shoot at represents the bigger part of the human body - the torso. Under combat stress hands shake, people make poor decisions, eyesigh can be impaired, etc. so trying to leg a guy isn't going to work as well as going for the bigger target. And considering how often even trained shooters miss the bigger target, asking people to go for a limb isn't realistic.

Stomach instead of chest? Dont bs me. You aren't on trial here. You can be honest here.

Snipers shoot to kill. Special Forces too. Everyone else is just sorta winging it.

I was going to agree with you guys after thinking about how the guy broke in with an Axe and was gonna kill the guy and he shot mid mass 3-6 times until the guy went down. No choice. But once the guy was down he didn't put a bullet in the guys head.

How many NRA type would finish the guy off before calling 911? And how many of them call themselves christians?

 

[pismoe]

seems to me that in a self defense situation [fear of my life] that a person can just fire warning shots or just throw the gun at the attacker Sealy . Think that the attacked person with the gun can do as he likes . Might be best for a guy that isn't really serious about self defense to just carry a big heavily chromed and unloaded gun that he can flash while saying , Make my Day Punk !!

 

[pismoe]

I could never understand . I'd see a gunfight between the good guy and the bad guy in gangster , cowboy or war movies and it looks like the good guy wins . The bad guy is in a fetal position in the corner and supposedly dead or dying . The next scene shows the bad guy reviving , taking aim and finally killing the good guy . Seems common sense that the good guy would just 'Always' walk or crawl over to the bad guy and PLUG the guy one or 2 more times to make sure that the bad guy was DEAD !!

 

[pismoe]

just an article , info on the 'Old days in the WEST'. Interesting to me as I live in an area where everyone has guns and so called Weapons of War Sealy and the area is low on any kinda crime let alone gun violence . --- The Wild Wild West. Or Not - The Truth About Guns --- not saying that this one little article is the last word on the subject , just saying that the subject could be interesting to checkout . Seems to me that most gun violence happens in big 'gun free' areas and Eastern cities where citizens are disarmed by governments laws !!

 

[2aguy]

It is called "deadly force" for a reason. As gunny says, you go for the center of body mass and you keep shooting until they go down. I was once told by a lawyer "If you are shooting a revolver, pull the trigger several times after firing all 6 rounds. The double imprints in the primers will be proof you were scared.".

If you do not want to risk carrying the guilt, buy a taser or pepper spray.

This christian said she would shoot the perp in the leg. I know she's just not admitting the truth that she would and should go for the kill regardless of thou shall not kill.

the Commandment is not thou shalt not kill...it is Thou shalt do no murder...big difference....and you shoot to stop the attack, and you most successfully do that shooting center of mass...

 

[2aguy]

My training was to shoot till the target is down and no threat. Aim body mass not extremities or head. Look at Wilson he shot Brown 4 times and never stopped him. Arm shots do not stop someone nor do leg shots hell they may just make them more pissed off.

How do you know the first shot wasn't enough? I bet the one was all it would have taken but he snapped and over reacted. Just like you he kept shooting till the guy was down. He didn't even wait 1 second between his first and second shot so how do you know 1 wasn't enough? It would be if you shot me.

You aren't being honest when you say he had to unload on that guy. You admit your training says blow him away. If anything your boy was a bad shot.

Why would you care? If they are an immediate threat to your life, you have a Christian obligation to protect your family and your own life. Chances are, it was a gun grabber anyway.

This all started when a christian said without god there are no moral absolutes. This conversation is proving that even with god there aren't moral absolutes. Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it.

as Dennis Prager points out the death penalty is the only penalty that is declared in all 5 books of the bible for murder......so the bible is fine with the death penalty for murder...

 

[2aguy]

i had to look that up

he implication, therefore, is that when dealing with an edged-weapon wielder at anything less than 21 feet an officer had better have his gun out and ready to shoot before the offender starts rushing him or else he risks being set upon and injured or killed before he can draw his sidearm and effectively defeat the attack.

Edged Weapon Defense Is or was the 21-foot rule valid Part 1

remember the core problem with the 21 ft rule....the guy has to have the determination to charge 21 ft toward a guy with a gun in the first place...the young thug in Ferguson thought he had an edge because he was unarmed and charging a law enforcement officer...he was wrong of course...

Now the criminal must decide that running toward the gun is the choice to make rather than running away from the gun..

 

[sealybobo]

I could never understand . I'd see a gunfight between the good guy and the bad guy in gangster , cowboy or war movies and it looks like the good guy wins . The bad guy is in a fetal position in the corner and supposedly dead or dying . The next scene shows the bad guy reviving , taking aim and finally killing the good guy . Seems common sense that the good guy would just 'Always' walk or crawl over to the bad guy and PLUG the guy one or 2 more times to make sure that the bad guy was DEAD !!

Or at least go kick the gun away right?

I guess I'm talking about some crack head you catch in your home late at night and you have a gun and he doesnt.

Now I've heard a lot of great arguments why you should shoot him if he runs. There could be more of them. Or he could have a gun you dont see. Or he could be running for cover where there he will return firem or being chased he might grab a hostage. I say shoot to stop or kill I'm just curious how christians choose to kill when god said dont murder. I know kill and murder are different too but if a christian could wound over kill odd they pick kill. They prefer kill.

 

[Mr.Right]

Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.

The Bible does not say thou shalt not kill. It says thou shalt not murder. If someone broke into my home, I would empty the entire clip with a clear conscience, if I considered them a threat. When your life is on the line, there is no such thing as excessive force.

 

[pismoe]

I don't want to kill anyone but every situation is different I guess . Had a friend in NYC , he woke up to a guy crawling through his window , he reached under his pillow and promptly shot the guy , killed him . Seemed reasonable to me and my friend got away with it and that was NYC . Anyway , just a story !!

 

[Gracie]

Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.

They are in my home uninvited, with God knows what plan in mind. I would shoot to kill. And make DAMN sure they are dead, too.

 

[Roadrunner]

Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.

Every CC instructor I have ever had(we have to retrain and renew so often I just said fuck it) teaches to shoot to kill.

I'd hate to have to do it, but, once that trigger is pulled, the fucker will die.

 

[Mr.Right]

Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.

They are in my home uninvited, with God knows what plan in mind. I would shoot to kill. And make DAMN sure they are dead, too.

WOW! We agree on something. Miracles DO happen.