Posted on 12/12/2007 7:02:04 PM PST by rhema
Extremely well stated.
Great article...
But in defence of never intending to turn a good defensive shoot by saying anything like “shoot to kill” into a bad shoot, I train to “shoot to stop”...
If the bad guy(s) dies in that process, well, thems the breaks I suppose...
Armed preparation works.
It sucks to even think about taking another life.
Sometimes, it's necessary, to save another life.
I would rather the gunman be taken out by 3 dozen worshipers than by a hired gun.
Other than that, all is well.
What does “shoot to stop” mean? Aim for his hand? I am no expert and have only fired a pistol a very few times in my life, but I thought aht if you had to shoot someone, you were supposed to aim for the center of his body. That’s pretty much a shoot to kill, if you hit it.
I would have preferred that as well. The woman who shot the attacker, though, was a church member providing security on a voluntary basis rather than a hired gun.
She was a volunteer, civilian parishioner. She had police training, used to be an officer, but she was just a private citizen with a carry permit.
The news media have done their best to obscure that, of course, because she is an "Armed Citizen" -- which they certainly don't want to publicize.
The hired security didn't show as well. An eyewitness (who got shot and only slightly wounded) said that other parishioners were begging the two security guards to give them their weapons, because they were just standing there and not shooting back. The guards refused.
Good thing there was an armed citizen there.
If it happens to kill the perp, so be it. But you are shooting to stop, not kill.
. . . this is primarily aimed at covering your posterior in court, should you have an anti-gun D.A. in your county.
You are correct.
If I ever fire my gun in any situation other than a practice range, the single reason to shoot, is with the full intention to kill something or somebody.
Which will indeed “stop” the animal or human on the receiving end.
“Warning / wounding” shots are strictly reserved for professional snipers in the employ of a government entity, or complete idiots.
Adding PC talking points, is a nod of approval to PC speech, and serves no good purpose.
Other than tampering with both the 1st and 2nd Ammendendments to the USA Constitution.
Unfortunately the “spin” being put on by the media is taking hold. The shooter who stopped the homicidal madman was not a hired gun. She is a parishioner volunteer, exactly the type person you wished her to be.
History seems to have come full circle. People had to carry rifles and shotguns in their wagons for protection when they attended church in the frontier days.
Shooting at firearm at a person always means applying deadly/lethal force.
You are absolutely correct, aim for the largest part of an attacker you can-the intent must be to force the attacker to stop; an armed citizen is only trying to stop an unlawful attack, not necessarily kill the attacker.
As a trainer, I never encourage a student to shoot for any place other than center of mass-it is the safest and most effective method (think of trying to shoot a weapon out of a running, dodging perp, how good does one need to be to do so?).
A miss is very undesireable-it allows the perp to continue, it puts others (downrange) at risk and it wastes the few precious rounds your firearm carries. Never shoot to wound, only shoot to stop-and keep doing so until the attack is thwarted.
Get a professional trainer to teach you basic defensive handgun techniques and tactics, otherwise you’ll likley not have the skills required.
God Bless
Every CCW class and firearms class I ever attended taught to shoot to stop the attack.
If you have so much distance between you and the attacker, you shoot for center mass.
If you can shoot for the head, do so.
If his big toe is exposed around a corner and you have enough ammo to stop the fight, you shoot the big toe.
Anything you do to stop the fight you do.
If the attacker drops his weapon and surrenders, the fight is over and you cease firing.
Texas CCW holders are taught to shoot to stop and not to kill. We arn’t taught to stand over and continue shooting just because the guy is still twitching.
When I was a kid my dad taught me to yell “halt”
Then fire 3 warning shots into his head.
It's wisdom thousands of years old.
Hávamál 38
A wayfarer should not walk unarmed,
But have his weapons to hand:
He knows not when he may need a spear,
Or what menace meet on the road.
What it means is: (1) shut down the nervous system directly/structurely; (2) shut it down indirectly by starving it of blood/oxygen.
A "stop" may kill, but not every "kill shot" will stop. For example, a shot to the thigh can result in eventual death through blood loss, but there may be enough life left in the assailant to continue the rampage, killing before he/she secumbs to his/her wounds. That's why a shoot to stop is preferable.
We worked too long to get CCW laws passed in this country to allow advice such as your’s to go unanswered.
The idea is to stop the threat and stay out of jail. So no, standing over a wounded attacker and pumping a couple more rounds into them isn’t a good idea.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.