Never shoot to wound

[coastie]

I felt compelled to start a thread on this because several here have mentioned numerous times in numerous threads that this or that person "shoulda just shot him in the arm". This is a very dangerous line of thought, one that may get you hurt or even killed.

I feel this line of thinking has been ingrained in the minds of those that watch way too much movies/TV, and a lack of experience with handling firearms. Sure, the hero in these movies never miss, the bad guy gets 'knee capped" and arrested and we all cheer. This is not reality.

In the heat of the moment, you are going to miss if aiming for something as small as an arm, or even a leg. Let me clarify: you will more than likely miss-is that a chance you are willing to take? If it is , then you do not need to carry a firearm. Period. The idea here is to STOP THE ATTACK-NOW. People don't just drop when shot in the arm like on TV, and in fact they are now fighting for their life, and guess who's trying to take their life-YOU. Ask any hunter if he'd walk up on an animal he "just wounded." Doing so might buy the hunter the spot on the ground right next the animal , bleeding out like he is.

NO military agency in the US, NO Law Enforcement agency, NO self defense shooting/CCW classes, NO private security agencies practice for these trick Hollywood shots. It does not happen.

When I was in the Coast Guard, we(like everyone else)always shot the silhouettes "center mass" in the chest. Not to kill them , per say, but because that's the biggest target area on a human body.

What is center mass? Center mass refers to the CENTER of the MASS that is in your SIGHT PICTURE. It does not mean "in the chest" as many tend to believe. It could also be their head.

The "goal" when shooting like this is to cause the most amount of blood pressure loss in the fastest time available. No blood pressure=the threat is on the ground-and is now no longer a threat.

[noxagol]

Plus, shooting to wound leaves one more person alive who can sue you for it, and they hold half the story. Shoot to kill the intruder, one less person to sue you over it and all they get to hear is your side of the story.

[coastie]

Plus, shooting to wound leaves one more person alive who can sue you for it, and they hold half the story. Shoot to kill the intruder, one less person to sue you over it and all they get to hear is your side of the story.

Not where I was going with this...because you can't tell if they are going to die or not. I think the survival rate for a hand gun is something like over 80%.

"Shooting to kill" can compel you to keep shooting-even after the attacker is down.

That will get you a murder charge quick like, and is not sound advice.

[AFPVet]

You never, ever shoot to wound. I also recommend against warning shots (but if you absolutely had to, into the ground would be best). Shooting to wound only happens in Hollywood. When you are under adrenaline dump, you are not very accurate. This is why you should always fire at COM. The best way to simulate how screwed up it can get, grab a few shots of espresso at the local Starbucks to go and drink them at the range. The jittery affect will simulate a defensive shooting incident. When your hands are shaking that badly, you go from shooting great at a fun day at the range to shooting piss poor.

Always shoot COM or the largest part of the body. As always, shoot until they stop the attack. In the case of a knife attack, shooting at the hips (the body's transmission system) may actually stop them faster—believe it or not!

[dmo069]

Plus, shooting to wound leaves one more person alive who can sue you for it, and they hold half the story. Shoot to kill the intruder, one less person to sue you over it and all they get to hear is your side of the story.

If you shoot someone, it doesn't matter if they live or die, someone will sue you!

You never shoot to injure or kill. You shoot to stop. That is the whole point.

[specsaregood]

This is a very dangerous line of thought, one that may get you hurt or even killed.

Or cause you to hit some innocent bystander, maybe even your own family.

[coastie]

If you shoot someone, it doesn't matter if they live or die, someone will sue you!

You never shoot to injure or kill. You shoot to stop. That is the whole point.

That depends highly on the state/circumstances if you'd get sued or not.

[coastie]

Or cause you to hit some innocent bystander, maybe even your own family.

Exactly. Which is also why you should ALWAYS carry hollow points-they tend to stop inside the body, and also do a LOT more damage (i.e. blood loss0 on their way in.

[AFPVet]

That depends highly on the state/circumstances if you'd get sued or not.

In some states, a clean shoot removes all legal liability.

[coastie]

You never, ever shoot to wound. I also recommend against warning shots (but if you absolutely had to, into the ground would be best). Shooting to wound only happens in Hollywood. When you are under adrenaline dump, you are not very accurate. This is why you should always fire at COM. The best way to simulate how screwed up it can get, grab a few shots of espresso at the local Starbucks to go and drink them at the range. The jittery affect will simulate a defensive shooting incident. When your hands are shaking that badly, you go from shooting great at a fun day at the range to shooting piss poor.

Always shoot COM or the largest part of the body. As always, shoot until they stop the attack. In the case of a knife attack, shooting at the hips (the body's transmission system) may actually stop them faster—believe it or not!

Warning shots are no good either, and also bad practice as you could hit someone/thing you did not intend to. I almost wouldn't be here right now, years ago I shot into the ground, I then heard the round whiz by my ear on it's way through two more walls behind me.... not too mention it's against a lot of state laws.

[bolil]

My dad told me if I ever was forced to pull on someone, shoot to kill and to not pull it out if I don't need to use it. He has given me alot of good advice. AFPVet, I would absolutely be aiming center mass... Im getting a .45...

[ghengis86]

You never, ever shoot to wound. I also recommend against warning shots (but if you absolutely had to, into the ground would be best). Shooting to wound only happens in Hollywood. When you are under adrenaline dump, you are not very accurate. This is why you should always fire at COM. The best way to simulate how screwed up it can get, grab a few shots of espresso at the local Starbucks to go and drink them at the range. The jittery affect will simulate a defensive shooting incident. When your hands are shaking that badly, you go from shooting great at a fun day at the range to shooting piss poor.

Always shoot COM or the largest part of the body. As always, shoot until they stop the attack. In the case of a knife attack, shooting at the hips (the body's transmission system) may actually stop them faster—believe it or not!

Good advice.

Also try doing 20 pushups or a quick sprint, dunk your hands into a bucket of water, grab your gun, chamber a round and squeeze off 5 rounds as quick as possible. Hitting center mass will be challenge. The only way you hit an arm or leg is by accident.

[bolil]

Exactly. Which is also why you should ALWAYS carry hollow points-they tend to stop inside the body, and also do a LOT more damage (i.e. blood loss0 on their way in.


I thought hollow points are illegal.

[AFPVet]

Warning shots are no good either, and also bad practice as you could hit someone/thing you did not intend to. I almost wouldn't be here right now, years ago I shot into the ground, I then heard the round whiz by my ear on it's way through two more walls behind me.... not too mention it's against a lot of state laws.

This is why I recommend against them; however, some people are going to do it regardless right? Sometimes, people just aren't going to listen.

[WilliamC]

Don't shoot to warn, don't shoot to wound, don't shoot to kill.

Shoot to eliminate the threat to your or another persons life.

[coastie]

I thought hollow points are illegal.

Maybe in China....Hollow points are "safer" than slugs in that they tend to stop inside the body as they expand, and have been slowed down considerably if they do make it out. Slugs can go right through and still retain much of their velocity-certainly enough to go into someone else.

[dmo069]

That depends highly on the state/circumstances if you'd get sued or not.

No it doesn't. You will be sued by someone.

[coastie]

This is why I recommend against them; however, some people are going to do it regardless right? Sometimes, people just aren't going to listen.

Yes, unfortunately.:(

[coastie]

No it doesn't. You will be sued by someone.

No-you will not, and it does depend on what I posted. Start another thread if you're just going to come in here with misinfo.


A friend's father shot and killed a burgular 15 years ago in my state(FL)-and yet here he still sits, un-sued.:rolleyes:

[AFPVet]

Maybe in China....Hollow points are "safer" than slugs in that they tend to stop inside the body as they expand, and have been slowed down considerably if they do make it out. Slugs can go right through and still retain much of their velocity.

In my opinion, you should ONLY use hollow points in a self defense pistol. For these reasons... and for the fact that hollow points transfer all of the energy into the target and are more likely to stop the attack. There are so many great choices for defensive ammunition... it's hard to go wrong.

[bolil]

Only reason I would even own a gun is to defend myself or others. I don't hunt.

[coastie]

In my opinion, you should ONLY use hollow points in a self defense pistol. For these reasons... and for the fact that hollow points transfer all of the energy into the target and are more likely to stop the attack. There are so many great choices for defensive ammunition... it's hard to go wrong.

I'm currently carrying Speer Gold Dot 185gr +P .45 ACP-love them, they open up to more than the diameter of a quarter.

[osan]

Not where I was going with this...because you can't tell if they are going to die or not. I think the survival rate for a hand gun is something like over 80%.

"Shooting to kill" can compel you to keep shooting-even after the attacker is down.

That will get you a murder charge quick like, and is not sound advice.

OK, time to clear the smoke out. Neither do you shoot to wound nor to kill. You shoot to STOP THE THREAT. That is the goal and if you ever shoot someone, they die, and you are in conversation with police, which should NEVER happen BTW, you fired to stop the threat, and in all good reason that is precisely what your intent should be and never should it be expressed as anything else. If you tell them you shot to kill or they look up your posts on RPF where you say "shoot to kill", you will likely go to prison.

This is serious, BTW - you never talk to police for any reason. Best not to even greet them if you can avoid it. I confess to violating that last bit now and again as my childhood training in good manners gets the better of me at times, but I never get into anything deeper with them unless I know them personally, and even so I am careful. Verbal transactions with police can be very dangerous to your health and freedom. It sucks that we have to be on such red-alert with police, but it is they who, through the changes in departments from "peace keepers" to "law enforcers", have precipitated this need to be so wary of them.

If you ever must shoot someone at some location other than home and the sort, get your hide to a lawyer's office first thing. If for some reason you are unable to leave, say not the first word to police or anyone else for that matter. The single soul on the planet with whom you should have any desire for contact is the lawyer. Re-read the last two sentences 100 times a day for the next six months and never ever break its mandate, lest you place yourself in serious peril at the mercy of our "justice" system.

Nutshell version: STFU and get to a lawyer.

Minimalist version: STFU.

[mello]

I actually went to a shooting range for the first time in my life last week. I had about a minute's worth of training before being left on my own. I was shooting a Glock 17 & I had the target about 15-20 feet away. I came to the realization that even with years of playing video games, I was a terrible shot in real life. My first 30 shots were aimed at the head target. Only 3 rounds hit what I was aiming at.

You really can't grasp the actual power of handgun from watching a movie or playing a video game. The kick & the noise from each shot were radically more intense than what I expected it to be. Even loading the ammo in the clip was not what I expected. If I do buy a gun, the first accessory I'm buying is a laser-sight.

[AFPVet]

I'm currently carrying Speer Gold Dot 185gr +P .45 ACP-love them, they open up to more than the diameter of a quarter.

Gold Dots are excellent performers!

[Dr.3D]

Wouldn't the caliber of the bullet have anything to do with if you use hollow point vs. fully jacketed? I live in the north and in the winter and have a smaller caliber pistol. I tend to mix every other round with hollow and FMJ. If the hollow point doesn't make it through the persons winder clothing, perhaps the FMJ will.

[specsaregood]

You really can't grasp the actual power of handgun from watching a movie or playing a video game. The kick & the noise from each shot were radically more intense than what I expected it to be. Even loading the ammo in the clip was not what I expected. If I do buy a gun, the first accessory I'm buying is a laser-sight.

I don't think a laser sight is gonna help you one bit. better to spend the money on practice time.

[WilliamC]

No it doesn't. You will be sued by someone.

Not in Mississippi.

Look up Castle Doctrine.

Or actually, I'll help :)

http://mississippicriminaldefenseblog.com/2010/04/15/mississippi-castle-doctrine/


In 2006, Mississippi enacted one of the nation’s most extensive “Castle Doctrine” laws. Instead of making an entirely new law, Mississippi’s castle doctrine comes from an amendment to the already existing “justifiable homicide” statute. Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-15. This law reads, in relevant part:

1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement or omission of another shall be justifiable in the following cases:

(e) When committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling, in any occupied vehicle, in any place of business, in any place of employment or in the immediate premises thereof in which such person shall be;

(f) When committed in the lawful defense of one’s own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished;

A “dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind that has a roof over it, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, including a tent, that is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, including any attached porch;

(3) A person who uses defensive force shall be presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm, or the commission of a felony upon him or another or upon his dwelling, or against a vehicle which he was occupying, or against his business or place of employment or the immediate premises of such business or place of employment, if the person against whom the defensive force was used, was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if that person had unlawfully removed or was attempting to unlawfully remove another against the other person’s will from that dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof and the person who used defensive force knew or had reason to believe that the forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. This presumption shall not apply if the person against whom defensive force was used has a right to be in or is a lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or is the lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if the person who uses defensive force is engaged in unlawful activity or if the person is a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his official duties;

(4) A person who is not the initial aggressor and is not engaged in unlawful activity shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force under subsection (1)(e) or (f) of this section if the person is in a place where the person has a right to be, and no finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the person’s failure to retreat as evidence that the person’s use of force was unnecessary, excessive or unreasonable.

(5) (a) The presumptions contained in subsection (3) of this section shall apply in civil cases in which self-defense or defense of another is claimed as a defense.

(b) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant acted in accordance with subsection (1)(e) or (f) of this section. A defendant who has previously been adjudicated “not guilty” of any crime by reason of subsection (1)(e) or (f) of this section shall be immune from any civil action for damages arising from same conduct.

If you read this carefully you will see that Mississippi takes the Castle Doctrine to the extreme, not only allowing you to defend your home (porches especially), but also your car, your place of employment, or practically anywhere you have a legal right to be. Also, unlike some states, you do not have to retreat before you take action to defend yourself. Last, but not least, the law added civil immunity (you can’t be sued) if you are forced to defend yourself in accordance with this law.

A couple of quick points about this law:

It is limited to the defense of people, not property.
It does not affect gun ownership rights in any way (i.e., if you cannot possess a gun for some reason, then this does not confer on you the right to have one).

This law has only been around for four years, and I’ve already had a few cases that have had castle doctrine implications. As always, there are exceptions and nuances to this law, as any other, so do not believe that this law has turned your front porch into a target range. If you have been accused of a crime, and you believe you were within your rights to defend yourself under this law, give me a call and let’s think it through. I am here to help.

[economics102]

Plus, shooting to wound leaves one more person alive who can sue you for it, and they hold half the story. Shoot to kill the intruder, one less person to sue you over it and all they get to hear is your side of the story.

Uhh, that may be true but that's not a very ethical thing to do. You can't say "it was self-defense, they were going to sue me!" :)

[Crotale]

It's best to aim for the chest as it's the largest target.

[specsaregood]

It's best to aim for the chest as it's the largest target.

Not necessarily. I suggest you go back and read the OP. He specifically mentions what you just said.

[coastie]

I actually went to a shooting range for the first time in my life last week. I had about a minute's worth of training before being left on my own. I was shooting a Glock 17 & I had the target about 15-20 feet away. I came to the realization that even with years of playing video games, I was a terrible shot in real life. My first 30 shots were aimed at the head target. Only 3 rounds hit what I was aiming a
You really can't grasp the actual power of handgun from watching a movie or playing a video game. The kick & the noise from each shot were radically more intense than what I expected it to be. Even loading the ammo in the clip was not what I expected. If I do buy a gun, the first accessory I'm buying is a laser-sight.

Lasers dont help you shoot if you can't
Shoot. Practice, practice, practice with all the extra magazines u bought with the money u saved.

[osan]

Wouldn't the caliber of the bullet have anything to do with if you use hollow point vs. fully jacketed?

Not really. The choice is largely dependent on use, not caliber. If over penetration is a concern, hollow point or frangible bullets are likely the ways to go. If you are shooting paper, there is no need.

The idea of the hollow point is to best ensure that the greatest amount of the projectile's energy is transferred to the target. Because human targets are so soft, hollow points and frangibles are good choices. Cape buffalo, OTOH, are not... but that's another discussion.


I live in the north and in the winter and have a smaller caliber pistol. I tend to mix every other round with hollow and FMJ. If the hollow point doesn't make it through the persons winder clothing, perhaps the FMJ will.

I would seriously consider a substantially larger bore. Size often matters in these affairs. I consider .40 S&W minimal acceptable fare. I carry hand loads just below SAAMI max with 180s. Very manageable push and pretty hard hitting at about 1100 out the snoot.

I also carry very hot 357 loads right at SAAMI max, 125s @ 1450 at the muzzle. My .45 eats hot loads as well.

You do not ever want to have to shoot someone, but if you are ever presented with a shoot or die choice and you choose not to die then you had better best make a good show of it. Killing someone is no joke no matter what you see on TV or in those atrociously lame video games which rot your mind. Shooting someone mortally yet failing to stop them in their tracks is a REALLY good way to become a ghost before your time.

Mortally wounded people can summon seemingly inhuman amounts of energy in their last moments of life and when their anger directs that energy toward you, you had better hope like hell that you will be able to stop him before he gets his mitts on you. I have heard first hand stories of people who have survived long enough to kill the person who shot them. A cop was killed after having shot a criminal in the heart. Said criminal, despite having zero blood pressure (his heart had been utterly obliterated by the shot), closed the gap and sliced his nemesis into lunch meat. A friend of my father had a liquor store in Brooklyn and almost bought it when a robber survived 32 rounds to the center of his very large mass. It took a 9mm round to the head to put his lights out finally, testament to why you want to carry the most powerful gun you can manage for such purposes and hope for all you are worth that you will never be called upon to act. Forget the psychological trauma that will attach itself to you for a very long time - you may not live to regret acting in self defense if you fail to act smartly, which includes a good choice of weapon.

Some people will fall down dead when hit with a .22. Those are not the one's for which you need to carry worry.

[tod evans]

Seeing as how I feel partly responsible for the necessity of this thread I'll say that I agree.....If in danger and under the threat of imminent harm always aim for the largest target.

(I'm bristling at the TV/movie reference but will shut up)



I felt compelled to start a thread on this because several here have mentioned numerous times in numerous threads that this or that person "shoulda just shot him in the arm". This is a very dangerous line of thought, one that may get you hurt or even killed.

I feel this line of thinking has been ingrained in the minds of those that watch way too much movies/TV, and a lack of experience with handling firearms. Sure, the hero in these movies never miss, the bad guy gets 'knee capped" and arrested and we all cheer. This is not reality.

In the heat of the moment, you are going to miss if aiming for something as small as an arm, or even a leg. Let me clarify: you will more than likely miss-is that a chance you are willing to take? If it is , then you do not need to carry a firearm. Period. The idea here is to STOP THE ATTACK-NOW. People don't just drop when shot in the arm like on TV, and in fact they are now fighting for their life, and guess who's trying to take their life-YOU. Ask any hunter if he'd walk up on an animal he "just wounded." Doing so might buy the hunter the spot on the ground right next the animal , bleeding out like he is.

NO military agency in the US, NO Law Enforcement agency, NO self defense shooting/CCW classes, NO private security agencies practice for these trick Hollywood shots. It does not happen.

When I was in the Coast Guard, we(like everyone else)always shot the silhouettes "center mass" in the chest. Not to kill them , per say, but because that's the biggest target area on a human body.

What is center mass? Center mass refers to the CENTER of the MASS that is in your SIGHT PICTURE. It does not mean "in the chest" as many tend to believe. It could also be their head.

The "goal" when shooting like this is to cause the most amount of blood pressure loss in the fastest time available. No blood pressure=the threat is on the ground-and is now no longer a threat.

And that concludes today's lesson on responsible self-defense shooting.:D

[John F Kennedy III]

I felt compelled to start a thread on this because several here have mentioned numerous times in numerous threads that this or that person "shoulda just shot him in the arm". This is a very dangerous line of thought, one that may get you hurt or even killed.

I feel this line of thinking has been ingrained in the minds of those that watch way too much movies/TV, and a lack of experience with handling firearms. Sure, the hero in these movies never miss, the bad guy gets 'knee capped" and arrested and we all cheer. This is not reality.

In the heat of the moment, you are going to miss if aiming for something as small as an arm, or even a leg. Let me clarify: you will more than likely miss-is that a chance you are willing to take? If it is , then you do not need to carry a firearm. Period. The idea here is to STOP THE ATTACK-NOW. People don't just drop when shot in the arm like on TV, and in fact they are now fighting for their life, and guess who's trying to take their life-YOU. Ask any hunter if he'd walk up on an animal he "just wounded." Doing so might buy the hunter the spot on the ground right next the animal , bleeding out like he is.

NO military agency in the US, NO Law Enforcement agency, NO self defense shooting/CCW classes, NO private security agencies practice for these trick Hollywood shots. It does not happen.

When I was in the Coast Guard, we(like everyone else)always shot the silhouettes "center mass" in the chest. Not to kill them , per say, but because that's the biggest target area on a human body.

What is center mass? Center mass refers to the CENTER of the MASS that is in your SIGHT PICTURE. It does not mean "in the chest" as many tend to believe. It could also be their head.

The "goal" when shooting like this is to cause the most amount of blood pressure loss in the fastest time available. No blood pressure=the threat is on the ground-and is now no longer a threat.

And that concludes today's lesson on responsible self-defense shooting.:D

+rep to you sir

To me as long as it is in self defense anything is on the table. Do what you have to do to defend you and yours.

[coastie]

Not really. The choice is largely dependent on use, not caliber. If over penetration is a concern, hollow point or frangible bullets are likely the ways to go. If you are shooting paper, there is no need.

The idea of the hollow point is to best ensure that the greatest amount of the projectile's energy is transferred to the target. Because human targets are so soft, hollow points and frangibles are good choices. Cape buffalo, OTOH, are not... but that's another discussion.



I would seriously consider a substantially larger bore. Size often matters in these affairs. I consider .40 S&W minimal acceptable fare. I carry hand loads just below SAAMI max with 180s. Very manageable push and pretty hard hitting at about 1100 out the snoot.

I also carry very hot 357 loads right at SAAMI max, 125s @ 1450 at the muzzle. My .45 eats hot loads as well.

You do not ever want to have to shoot someone, but if you are ever presented with a shoot or die choice and you choose not to die then you had better best make a good show of it. Killing someone is no joke no matter what you see on TV or in those atrociously lame video games which rot your mind. Shooting someone mortally yet failing to stop them in their tracks is a REALLY good way to become a ghost before your time.

Mortally wounded people can summon seemingly inhuman amounts of energy in their last moments of life and when their anger directs that energy toward you, you had better hope like hell that you will be able to stop him before he gets his mitts on you. I have heard first hand stories of people who have survived long enough to kill the person who shot them. A cop was killed after having shot a criminal in the heart. Said criminal, despite having zero blood pressure (his heart had been utterly obliterated by the shot), closed the gap and sliced his nemesis into lunch meat. A friend of my father had a liquor store in Brooklyn and almost bought it when a robber survived 32 rounds to the center of his very large mass. It took a 9mm round to the head to put his lights out finally, testament to why you want to carry the most powerful gun you can manage for such purposes and hope for all you are worth that you will never be called upon to act. Forget the psychological trauma that will attach itself to you for a very long time - you may not live to regret acting in self defense if you fail to act smartly, which includes a good choice of weapon.

Some people will fall down dead when hit with a .22. Those are not the one's for which you need to carry worry.

+rep for saying what I said in OP, although much more eloquently.:)

That is why I used the hunter's analogy. For those that do not hunt, animals-including humans, will summon up the strength with an endorphin dump to counter attack when their life is slipping away-it's instinct to do so. Which is why you are taught to drop the animal, immediately.

Some of you are walking a fine line with your rhetoric on what you would do if this or that, and I'm telling you-if you own a weapon, you need to either get some training, or pray you are never in a situation where you have to shoot someone. I'd prefer you get the training and not have to even worry about it.:)

[phill4paul]

Agreed. As I posted in one of the far too numerous Martin/Zimmerman posts......



Originally Posted by dannno
Assuming he isn't lying, what would you have done? I think I would have shot him in the leg or something.

If I raise a firearm you will either desist or be dead. Leg shots and disarming shots are Hollywood. If I raise a firearm I will be deadly earnest that you desist in what it is you are doing. Otherwise, I will not raise a firearm. I'm not framing this statement with regards to this particular instance. I'm just giving advise to the use of firearms in general.

[sync]

I actually went to a shooting range for the first time in my life last week. I had about a minute's worth of training before being left on my own. I was shooting a Glock 17 & I had the target about 15-20 feet away. I came to the realization that even with years of playing video games, I was a terrible shot in real life. My first 30 shots were aimed at the head target. Only 3 rounds hit what I was aiming at.

You really can't grasp the actual power of handgun from watching a movie or playing a video game. The kick & the noise from each shot were radically more intense than what I expected it to be. Even loading the ammo in the clip was not what I expected. If I do buy a gun, the first accessory I'm buying is a laser-sight.

I've had a lot of experience with guns, growing up in the country-side. While a laser pointer seems cool, accurate, and reliable; I can confidently say that I no longer use lasers on my rifles or hand guns. Like someone else said, practice, practice, practice. I am much more accurate with standard sights than a laser. It's funny when I go to the range and some of these guys have their handguns all decked out with lasers and can't hit accurately from 15-20 feet away... while at the same time I can consistently hit center mass at 30 yards with standard sights on any of my hand guns.

[John F Kennedy III]

Uhh, that may be true but that's not a very ethical thing to do. You can't say "it was self-defense, they were going to sue me!" :)

It was wallet defense!

[coastie]

I've had a lot of experience with guns, growing up in the country-side. While a laser pointer seems cool, accurate, and reliable; I can confidently say that I no longer use lasers on my rifles or hand guns. Like someone else said, practice, practice, practice. I am much more accurate with standard sights than a laser. It's funny when I go to the range and some of these guys have their handguns all decked out with lasers and can't hit accurately from 15-20 feet away... while at the same time I can consistently hit center mass at 30 yards with standard sights on any of my hand guns.

Lasers are ok for sighting, and really good for training, don't know why I didn't think of this earlier when they came up. So to the guy I told earlier to not to get a laser, at least get a cheaper one, here's why:

With a laser, a good instructor will be able to show you exactly what's happening on the target during aiming, and trigger pull without even having to fire, and these are key to accurate shooting. Anyone who has ever held a gun with a laser knows what I'm talking about, you'll see the laser dancing all over the place in little figure 8's and zig-zags as you're breathing. You can also do this at home if you have one of those laser-pointy things that you like to drive the cat crazy with. Never forget your arms and hands are connected to that thing that moves when you breathe, and so they move, too, but that's a whole other discussion..

[brushfire]

In the eyes of the law - shooting someone anywhere is considered use of lethal force. If your situation does not justify the use of lethal force, you have no business shooting anyone anywhere.

That being said, if you're life is in danger, why wouldn't you shoot to kill? Shooting with the intention of woulding implies that you're life is not really in danger.

[tod evans]

In the eyes of the law - shooting someone anywhere is considered use of lethal force. If your situation does not justify the use of lethal force, you have no business shooting anyone anywhere.

That being said, if you're life is in danger, why wouldn't you shoot to kill? Shooting with the intention of woulding implies that you're life is not really in danger.

Lethal force is often legally used to protect property.

[coastie]

In the eyes of the law - shooting someone anywhere is considered use of lethal force. If your situation does not justify the use of lethal force, you have no business shooting anyone anywhere.

That being said, if you're life is in danger, why wouldn't you shoot to kill? Shooting with the intention of woulding implies that you're life is not really in danger.

Eggs Zachly.;)

[coastie]

Lethal force is often legally used to protect property.

In some states that's ok, in others it is not. Always check your local laws.

[Anti Federalist]

Great thread.

Lots of good advice here.

I wonder, what else can you not do, legally, and expect to use self defense as a justification?

[coastie]

Great thread.

Lots of good advice here.

I wonder, what else can you not do, legally, and expect to use self defense as a justification?


Something's ringing a bell.......;) but in this thread noone should get their emotional panties in a bunch to the point it affects their brains.:cool:

[Anti Federalist]

Something's ringing a bell.......;) but in this thread noone should get their emotional panties in a bunch to the point it affects their brains.:cool:

That is as far as I'll go in derailing your most excellent thread.;)

[tod evans]

In some states that's ok, in others it is not. Always check your local laws.

True.

Locally rustlers are much more of a problem than home invasions.

Demographics taint opinions. ;)

[coastie]

That is as far as I'll go in derailing your most excellent thread.;)

Tips hat:)

[sync]

Lasers are ok for sighting, and really good for training, don't know why I didn't think of this earlier when they came up. So to the guy I told earlier to not to get a laser, at least get a cheaper one, here's why:

With a laser, a good instructor will be able to show you exactly what's happening on the target during aiming, and trigger pull without even having to fire, and these are key to accurate shooting. Anyone who has ever held a gun with a laser knows what I'm talking about, you'll see the laser dancing all over the place in little figure 8's and zig-zags as you're breathing. You can also do this at home if you have one of those laser-pointy things that you like to drive the cat crazy with. Never forget your arms and hands are connected to that thing that moves when you breathe, and so they move, too, but that's a whole other discussion..

That's a great point! Go to a range and try using a laser to aim at your target. You will see very quickly how easily it is to miss. The laser pointer will show you just how shaky and inaccurate you can be if you don't have enough training and experience...

[coastie]

True.

Locally rustlers are much more of a problem than home invasions.

Demographics taint opinions. ;)

...and motives and intentions.;)

[brushfire]

Lethal force is often legally used to protect property.

It may be used, but not necessarily justified. AOJP

[tod evans]

...and motives and intentions.;)

10 points!

[coastie]

It may be used, but not necessarily justified. AOJP

Especially not in your state, where you can do neither.:p

[brushfire]

Especially not in your state.:p

Actually, the irony, is that IL has one of the best defense statutes in the Union. - honest :D

[phill4paul]

Demographics taint opinions. ;)

I tend to disagree here. I know my viewpoint may be one that is frowned upon. I honestly do not care what the local laws are. This is in regards to carrying and especially with regards to use.
With regards to carrying I take the unpopular opinion of taking whichever firearms I deem I might need regardless of law. I believe it is my second amendment right. I have even carried in National Parks when it was verboten. MY right of self protection is mine and mine alone to decide. I am willing to face the ramifications.
With regards to use it is pretty much the same. I don't care what the local laws are. If I feel a need to use a firearm I will. I will not hesitate to wonder which ordinance I am breaking. Again, I am willing to face the ramifications. But, at least, I will still be here to face them.

EDIT: And just to be clear. From a LEGAL standpoint I am a jackass. DO NOT take what I have written to heart if you want to be within the bounds of the law.

[coastie]

Actually, the irony, is that IL has one of the best defense statutes in the Union. - honest :D

Is that not only for defense of your home though?:confused:

[coastie]

I tend to disagree here. I know my viewpoint may be one that is frowned upon. I honestly do not care what the local laws are. This is in regards to carrying and especially with regards to use.
With regards to carrying I take the unpopular opinion of taking whichever firearms I deem I might need regardless of law. I believe it is my second amendment right. I have even carried in National Parks when it was verboten. MY right of self protection is mine and mine alone to decide. I am willing to face the ramifications.
With regards to use it is pretty much the same. I don't care what the local laws are. If I feel a need to use a firearm I will. I will not hesitate to wonder which ordinance I am breaking. Again, I am willing to face the ramifications. But, at least, I will still be here to face them.


Wait....what? I responded in a totally different manner to the same post, I must've zigged when I should've zagged, or something.

[phill4paul]

Wait....what? I responded in a totally different manner to the same post, I must've zigged when I should've zagged, or something.

I dunno coastie. Maybe I read it wrong. I thought the post was regarding knowing local law and adhering to it. I travel too much to worry about any local ordinances.I dunno. Tired I guess. Carry on.....:o

[coastie]

I dunno coastie. Maybe I read it wrong. I thought the post was regarding knowing local law and adhering to it. I travel too much to worry about any local ordinances.I dunno. Tired I guess. Carry on.....:o

:p

[brushfire]

Is that not only for defense of your home though?:confused:

It is applicable outside of the home, but the law is more geared for the typical defense language. It becomes very difficult to argue a case where you come out of the mall to someone driving away in your truck, so you open fire and kill all the occupants. Still the law is written as such that you are "justified" if the use of force is used to stop a "forcible felony".

The downside is that many dont realize, until they're on trial, that the state has unlimited legal resources. So you may take out a thug who stole your car, but it will cost your house, 401k, second car, and a sizable loan to prove it. In other words, you'll be free and broke.

My favorite expert on the general topic is Mas Ayoob.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW_xaTf5oqI

[coastie]

Ayoob is badass.:cool:

[Seraphim]

The way the USA (and the entire Western world) is going, soon it will be illegal to defend yourself.

"But officer, he had came at me with a knife...I knocked him out cold to protect my life."

"Mundane, you should have called to police and waited for a trained civil servant to protect you. You have no authority to protect yourself!"

[tod evans]

My favorite expert on the general topic is Mas Ayoob.




More from Ayoob;
http://www.backwoodshome.com/ayoob_index.html

[XTreat]

Center Mass

[mello]

Lasers dont help you shoot if you can't
Shoot. Practice, practice, practice with all the extra magazines u bought with the money u saved.

The guy told me that aiming involved lining up the peg at the end of the glock in between the 2 pegs at the other end of the glock which was what I did. So I'm a little confused as why I was so far off from what I was aiming at.

[dmo069]

Not in Mississippi.

Look up Castle Doctrine.

Or actually, I'll help :)

http://mississippicriminaldefenseblog.com/2010/04/15/mississippi-castle-doctrine/

No matter how you read that, you can still be sued. You just aren't liable for civil damages if you followed the law and were not convicted of a crime. This does not apply for protecting property.

[Anti Federalist]

The guy told me that aiming involved lining up the peg at the end of the glock in between the 2 pegs at the other end of the glock which was what I did. So I'm a little confused as why I was so far off from what I was aiming at.

http://www.concealedhandguncarry.com/resources/SIGHTALIGNMENT3.png

[osan]

The guy told me that aiming involved lining up the peg at the end of the glock in between the 2 pegs at the other end of the glock which was what I did. So I'm a little confused as why I was so far off from what I was aiming at.

Combat shooting pretty well disregards the rear sight. The only one that counts is the front. Were guys like Michalak to pay attention to both sights, their shooting would be a LOT slower. The key is practice. Lots of it. With sufficient practice your muscles are trained to hold the weapon such that the sights are well aligned left to right more by feel than by eye.

As to why you are not hitting where you believe to be aiming, that is a simple matter of how you are pulling the trigger. Trigger pull is perhaps the key element in good marksmanship, particularly with pistols. One of the best ways to practice good trigger technique is to get a revolver, load it with snap caps, and keep pulling using different methods such as finger placement etc., until the sights stop dancing as you cycle the action. At first you will see significant movement, usually lateral though for some it is vertical. If you pay attention and adjust your pull to negate the movement of the weapon, you will start seeing improvement. Then go back to the range and try it with live ammunition, slow fire only. You will see improvement in time.

[phill4paul]

Combat shooting pretty well disregards the rear sight. The only one that counts is the front. Were guys like Michalak to pay attention to both sights, their shooting would be a LOT slower. The key is practice. Lots of it. With sufficient practice your muscles are trained to hold the weapon such that the sights are well aligned left to right more by feel than by eye.

As to why you are not hitting where you believe to be aiming, that is a simple matter of how you are pulling the trigger. Trigger pull is perhaps the key element in good marksmanship, particularly with pistols. One of the best ways to practice good trigger technique is to get a revolver, load it with snap caps, and keep pulling using different methods such as finger placement etc., until the sights stop dancing as you cycle the action. At first you will see significant movement, usually lateral though for some it is vertical. If you pay attention and adjust your pull to negate the movement of the weapon, you will start seeing improvement. Then go back to the range and try it with live ammunition, slow fire only. You will see improvement in time.

Good advise. My uncle would leave one chamber (sometimes two) empty when I was a kid. Amazing how much a new shooter anticipates the kick and throws the shot off.

[AFPVet]

Good advise. My uncle would leave one chamber (sometimes two) empty when I was a kid. Amazing how much a new shooter anticipates the kick and throws the shot off.

Yup... as they taught us at CATM for shooting fundamentals, the recoil should always be a surprise... never anticipate the recoil.