# "Shoot Him in the Legs!"



## Steve M1911A1

In another area of this forum, peripherally discussing responses to criminal activity, *SailDesign* advocated that, when faced by an assailant, one should shoot to wound. His specific words were: "Shoot him in the legs."
I've opened this thread to discuss that technical issue, and also to discuss the point of view which leads to it.

Bear in mind that, in every state I can think of, the civilian has no duty to "shoot to wound." If one is confronted with a threat sufficient to cause one's response to involve a deadly weapon, there is no legal reason to restrain that response and make it less-than-lethal.
On the other hand, if the threat that one faces is insufficient to provoke a deadly response, then any sort of disproportionate response-perhaps involving a deadly weapon-will be immoral, inappropriate, and also illegal.

According to law in general, response to a threat must be proportional to that threat. For instance, if one is attacked with fists, one must respond with nothing stronger than fists.
The law, in general, permits an exception to this rule: If your assailant is disproportionally strong, skilled, mobile, or even more-able-because-younger, you may escalate your response force sufficiently to equalize the fight.
(There are other considerations, in the scale of disproportionality, but that is very much a separate discussion.)

The American civilian is endowed with the right to make arrests of criminals, although this right is somewhat constrained, both by criminal law and by the threat of civil damages in cases of misprison or false arrest. Generally speaking, it is not the duty (important word) of the civilian to make an arrest, to stop a fleeing criminal, or even to stop a criminal act in progress.
It very much is the duty (important word) of a sworn agent of the police to make arrests, to stop fleeing criminals, and to stop criminal acts in progress. Because of this disparity, police agents are held relatively free from possible charges of misprison or false arrest.
Further, also because of this disparity, police agents are permitted disproportionate response. A cop may shoot someone, in the head, torso, or even the legs, when it would otherwise be impermissible for a civilian to do so. A cop may escalate the encounter, while a civilian may not.

When a civilian responds proportionally with deadly force, there must be only one outcome, speaking in practical terms: The fight must be brought to an immediate end as efficiently and as quickly as possible, without involving any other person(s).
If the responding civilian elects to use deadly force to stop a fight, it would be foolish and dangerous for him to "shoot to wound." Doing so would only allow the assailant further reason and motivation to do his own job of using deadly force, and further it could cause a panicked assailant to strike out wildly and thus to injure innocent bystanders.
The civilian has neither duty nor practical reason to preserve the life of an assailant who is already using deadly force, since doing so puts the civilian's life in further danger. The civilian has no duty of arrest, but only one of self-preservation.

I'll stop here for the nonce.
Issues of technique, and the extreme difficulties of making highly accurate shots when in a save-your-life panic, will be covered later.


----------



## GCBHM

I'm not one to make blanket statements, but my general thought process is shoot to kill. Of course, there are always exceptions, and each case is different, but on the whole, shooting to wound so I can turn them over to the police assumes that once shot, the assailant will stop. Also, wrt disproportionate response, I have no idea as to the capabilities of any individual, so I'm not one who will attempt to measure that. If I feel my life is in danger, I will shoot. I'm not going to go fist-to-cuff with anyone if I do not have to. If I cannot talk my way out of a confrontation to walk away, and I have a weapon, I will use it if cornered.

I feel there are too many variables to be able to discuss what I would do, how I will think and/or react, but all I can do is practice my skill and become proficient with my tool also. My skill is my mental and physical capabilities. The tools I use vary, but I want to be able to make sound judgments and good decisions at the point of impact, before implementation of a tool.


----------



## Sempervigilans

Very articulate, Steve...and concisely correct. As one who's been trained and has served to protect in several different arenas, I can attest that NO WHERE have I EVER been trained to shoot to wound. The objective justification was always "shoot to stop the threat, immediately." Shooting center mass of whatever portion of the target was presented has always been the primary drill in defensive tactics regarding firearms. Shooting to wound is a spy, thing...or used when appropriate for direct action engagements to facilitate taking a target alive for interrogation and what-not. Police officers and civilians have only ONE objective when using lethal force. To stop the threat. Immediately. Thanks for posting this discussion, Steve...it's something that should be covered more by the media when they're trying to smear a LEO for doing their job.


----------



## TAPnRACK

Very well thought out post from Steve. 

It touches on several interesting subjects that I stress upon students... such as you, as a citizen, have no obligation or "duty" to help others or attempt to apprehend criminals, many have been sued for acting under the false idea of the "Good Samaritan Rule"... which does not extend to everybody. The idea that because you carry (OC/CCW) you're somehow a "Sheepdog" with an obligation to assist LE or involve yourself in unknown situations is ridiculous.... and dangerous.

Another idea I try to explain is the unrealistic situations or improbable feats Hollywood has created that some believe or hold true.... when confronted with a deadly force attack, you don't fire warning shots... you don't try to shoot a gun/knife/bat out of an assailant's hand or try to "wing him". You don't hope the mere sight of a gun will deter an attacker either.

You shoot to stop the threat... you don't stop til there is no longer a threat, whether it be 1 or 2 rounds... or a full magazine. This type of mind set is critical to surviving a deadly force attack. Failure to completely stop a threat can have grave consequences. 

I've seen security footage of a shopkeeper who is robbed at gunpoint by 2 subjects... during the course of the armed robbery, the storekeeper pulls a gun from under the counter and fires one round into one of the subjects. He goes down quick and the other runs out the front door. The storekeeper chases after the guy running away and stops in the doorway to the store watching him escape. The next thing he sees is darkness after the "wounded" subject, still on the floor in the store, shoots the storekeeper in the head... killing him pretty much instantly. It's a tough video to watch... but it teaches an important lesson.


----------



## SouthernBoy

I wrote this as part of a post on the forum which spawned this thread.

_As for "hit him in the legs, FFS", if you mean shoot him in the legs, this is something you most definitely do NOT want to do.

Firstly, legs are not large targets, tend to move a lot, and are difficult to hit in an extreme encounter.

Secondly, by doing this you are as much as saying to a prosecutor that you didn't believe you were in enough danger to use deadly force, yet to him you most certainly did. You will be in a heap of trouble for trying something like this._

Attempting to shoot someone in the legs, aside from the difficulty of such a maneuver, tells the world that you really didn't believe you were in that serious of a situation so you just wanted to scare the perp or perhaps hurt him enough that he will leave you alone. This is very dangerous mindset and should anyone be of a mind to do something like this, they'd be better off not having a firearm at the ready for their protection.


----------



## SailDesign

OK - to be fair - I never (if I remember rightly) advocated the public/CCW/civilians to shoot to wound. That is mainly because in order to need to shoot at all, your life should be in danger (i.e. you don't shoot someone running away with your TV, unless he stops and pulls a guin on oyu)

I advocated the police to shoot to wound in situations where it is possible and a mortal shot would not be justified (drunks, crazy guys on the street, whatever) Precisely those times where a Taser might be used, but you don't happen to have one with you. 

I have no knowledge of shooting at people, and hope I never do - but I'd like to think that I'd try to incapacitate someone first, rather than trying to kill them. 

Go for it, though. I'll be interested to see what you come up with by way of discussion.


----------



## SouthernBoy

SailDesign said:


> OK - to be fair - I never (if I remember rightly) advocated the public/CCW/civilians to shoot to wound. That is mainly because in order to need to shoot at all, your life should be in danger (i.e. you don't shoot someone running away with your TV, unless he stops and pulls a guin on oyu)
> 
> I advocated the police to shoot to wound in situations where it is possible and a mortal shot would not be justified (drunks, crazy guys on the street, whatever) Precisely those times where a Taser might be used, but you don't happen to have one with you.
> 
> I have no knowledge of shooting at people, and hope I never do - but I'd like to think that I'd try to incapacitate someone first, rather than trying to kill them.
> 
> Go for it, though. I'll be interested to see what you come up with by way of discussion.


*"That is mainly because in order to need to shoot at all, your life should be in danger"*
Well not entirely the case. Being in fear of imminent serious bodily harm is sufficient cause for a deadly force response.

*"I advocated the police to shoot to wound in situations where it is possible and a mortal shot would not be justified (drunks, crazy guys on the street, whatever) Precisely those times where a Taser might be used, but you don't happen to have one with you."*
This would be a very bad policy because even though an officer may have intended to just wound someone, his shots could just as easily penetrate vital areas and result in someone's death who wasn't doing anything to warrant this.

*"I have no knowledge of shooting at people, and hope I never do - but I'd like to think that I'd try to incapacitate someone first, rather than trying to kill them."*
Based on this statement, I would strongly suggest to you that you avoid using a firearm in your defense. This is not meant to disparage you but rather to offer advice that could save your life and your assets. Anyone who takes it upon themselves to have a firearm at hand for their defense needs to do all of the training and mental preparation they can so that if the time ever comes when they need to call upon that weapon, they will use it with prejudice and deliberation against their assailant(s).


----------



## SouthernBoy

Hollywood has done a great disservice to the American public when it comes to the subject of defending against violent encounters. You're not going to be able to shot a gun or knife out of someone's hand, your attacker is not going to waste time talking to you in a menacing fashion as he moves ever closer, and you're not going to be able to deliver a flesh, shoulder, or leg wound on cue and stop the attack. This works in movies and on TV but is rubbish in the real world.

And blood is not going to gush out in torrents with holes in his clothes several inches across. The perp is not going to be thrown five or six feet across a room or the street from hits from your 9mm pistol. One has to wonder how many people have been injured or killed because they believed this stuff. I've heard of people who have fired one or two shots then stopped because that's what they saw on TV. In the meantime the perp rushes them and is one them as one mad SOB.

Movies are fun but they're not real. The one thing you can count on in an extreme encounter is the fact that you can't count on anything at all in an extreme encounter. This means you have to be prepared for the worse case scenario up front and work backwards from there instead of starting at the bottom and escalating your response as the threat unfolds.

Shooting in the legs? That's a recipe for nothing good.


----------



## Goldwing

I don't recall seeing man silhouette targets that have had legs on them. I am dead certain that I've never seen any taget representing a man that had a scoring number associated with a shot in the legs. As far as leg shooting goes, I believe that the last LEO killed in my home town was hit in the inside upper thigh and bled out before he could receive any attention to his wound. Maybe we should just aim for fingers?
Goldwing


----------



## DirtyDog

If I'm willing to shoot someone, it's because I believe that person poses a direct and immediate threat to myself or others. 
That being the case, the simple reality is that shooting them in the legs will not necessarily end the threat.
I've have been in EMS in one way or another (Paramedic, RN, now ER/Flight nurse) since 1979, and I can't tell you how many people I have seen who had been shot, stabbed, bludgeoned... and kept on fighting.
I once saw a guy who had been stabbed 6 or 7 times. When he finally lost pulses, he finally stopped fighting us. We cracked his chest opened and stapled the 4cm lac in his left ventricle closed. Stabbed. Through the primary pumping chamber of the heart. And kept on fighting. And shooting them in the leg is supposed to stop them? Please...

If the other person is willing to kill you, you should shoot to end the threat as quickly as possible. That means center mass.
If they aren't clearly an immanent threat, then you don't need to shoot them at all.

Add in the simple fact that it is *much much* more difficult to hit a small, rapidly moving limb than the larger, comparatively slow moving torso, and this becomes a non brainer.


----------



## pic

goldwing said:


> I don't recall seeing man silhouette targets that have had legs on them. I am dead certain that I've never seen any taget representing a man that had a scoring number associated with a shot in the legs. As far as leg shooting goes, I believe that the last LEO killed in my home town was hit in the inside upper thigh and bled out before he could receive any attention to his wound. Maybe we should just aim for fingers?
> Goldwing


You don't have targets with legs?


----------



## Goldwing

That one caused an involuntary smile to crack my normally stoic face. I appreciate the levity.:lol:
Goldwing


----------



## Steve M1911A1

pic said:


> You don't have targets with legs?
> View attachment 658


Are they equipped with self-adhesive backing?
Do they come in lefts and rights?
Straight and bent (in the British sense of the words, as well)?

*Note:*
I think that it is now unnecessary for me to open a discussion of technique, about attempting to "shoot him in the legs."
Sufficient numbers of experienced pistol shooters have already weighed-in with their own practical observations on the subject.
My input is not really necessary.


----------



## Cait43

SailDesign;329914
I advocated the police to shoot to wound in situations where it is possible and a mortal shot would not be justified (drunks said:


> More often than not when a law enforcement personnel finds a need to draw his weapon they do not have the luxury of having 10 minutes to decide whether they should just "wound" the threat.... Usually they only have very few seconds to react... Keep in mind that reacting takes more time than the person that is taking an action....
> 
> Shooting to "wound" works perfectly in the movies and on TV shows, not so much in real time.........
> 
> Here is an interesting article...........
> Why one cop carries 145 rounds of ammo on the job


----------



## Goldwing

Cait43 said:


> More often than not when a law enforcement personnel finds a need to draw his weapon they do not have the luxury of having 10 minutes to decide whether they should just "wound" the threat.... Usually they only have very few seconds to react... Keep in mind that reacting takes more time than the person that is taking an action....
> 
> Shooting to "wound" works perfectly in the movies and on TV shows, not so much in real time.........
> 
> Here is an interesting article...........
> Why one cop carries 145 rounds of ammo on the job


WOW! I have to say that the article goes beyond interesting. Captivating is closer but still inadequate. Thanks for the link Cait43.
Goldwing


----------



## Tip

Cait43 said:


> More often than not when a law enforcement personnel finds a need to draw his weapon they do not have the luxury of having 10 minutes to decide whether they should just "wound" the threat.... Usually they only have very few seconds to react... Keep in mind that reacting takes more time than the person that is taking an action....
> 
> Shooting to "wound" works perfectly in the movies and on TV shows, not so much in real time.........
> 
> Here is an interesting article...........
> Why one cop carries 145 rounds of ammo on the job


^^^^
This
From what I remember the Ferguson altercation took something like 90 seconds -- there is no time to "think" but only to react. Training is paramount. If we begin to train LEO to react by only shooting to wound you are liable to end up with a bunch of dead LEO -- the BG generally won't be shooting to wound....


----------



## NGIB

Shooting to do minimum damage is the silliest idea I have ever heard - for LEOs or civilians. If you're going to use a gun then you're using it to stop a threat as quickly and efficiently as possible. I, and everyone I know, trains to hit center mass with multiple shots in minimum time and this is the only strategy that makes sense at all.

Personally, I practice the Mozambique fairly often...


----------



## SouthernBoy

NGIB said:


> Shooting to do minimum damage is the silliest idea I have ever heard - for LEOs or civilians. If you're going to use a gun then you're using it to stop a threat as quickly and efficiently as possible. I, and everyone I know, trains to hit center mass with multiple shots in minimum time and this is the only strategy that makes sense at all.
> 
> Personally, I practice the Mozambique fairly often...


I do a lot of shooting at flipping targets which are timed to go from an edge presentation to one of "face" and then back. We set the face time to as low as two seconds for double taps. For draw and fire practice, we generally use three seconds for double taps to CM and four seconds for the Mozambique drill. All of this is good and worthwhile training and has helped me a lot over the past three years I have been doing it.

We use paper plates (seven and nine inch) and index cards. The paper plates are for CM shots and the index cards are for the head. Another drill we use with draw and fire is the random number drill. We take a nine inch paper plate and draw varying shapes on it with numbers (up to six numbered shapes). Some shapes are triangles, some are squares, and some are circles. Then we have the target flip to face, our partner calls out a number, then we draw and fire on it before it flips back to edge. This is an interesting and challenging drill. To be sure, we do others as well.


----------



## SouthernBoy

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Are they equipped with self-adhesive backing?
> Do they come in lefts and rights?
> Straight and bent (in the British sense of the words, as well)?
> 
> *Note:*
> I think that it is now unnecessary for me to open a discussion of technique, about attempting to "shoot him in the legs."
> Sufficient numbers of experienced pistol shooters have already weighed-in with their own practical observations on the subject.
> My input is not really necessary.


Oh no. You started this mess. Now you have to continue with it. Speaking for myself, I enjoy reading what you have to say and add to a discussion so please do continue to share in this thread.


----------



## desertman

The former Governor of New York the brilliant David Paterson once advocated for legislation that would require the police and civilians alike to shoot to wound.


----------



## SailDesign

Good enough, all. Point taken.


----------



## Goldwing

You are slipping Sail. It only took about 14 points of view to break you down. Are you feeling okay? :smt062
Goldwing


----------



## SailDesign

goldwing said:


> You are slipping Sail. It only took about 14 points of view to break you down. Are you feeling okay? :smt062
> Goldwing




Tough week this week at work. So I went to bed early last night and missed all the fun. 
Luckily, I don't feel broken down so much as convinced.


----------



## PT111Pro

Hummm
Shoot to wound is illegal. The question is why shot at all if you are not in a life threatening situation. And I have to agree. Shoot someone only to stay my ground is a dangerous behavior that should not be tolerated.

Well - let say you think you can stop an attacker by shooting the bad girl in the leg. First that will not stop any live threatening attack and makes the attacker just more angry. 
We have first to say, that only 20% of the fired shots, even from law enforcement hit the target, and from this 20% are only 35% have deadly consequences.
\
Sail must be a trained Marksman but even a Marksman (I know a lot of them from my time in the army) couldn’t shoot someone in the leg in a life threatening situation.

How should that look like? That would mean you have time enough to draw, aim accurately and then shoot. And what happen if you don’t hit? 

If someone thinks that shooting in a leg is the solution, should go to a CHL training class and just watch silently when the shooting test is done.

3 yard line - 20 shots:
1 shot in 2 seconds, 5 times
2 shots in 3 seconds, 5 times
5 shots in 10 seconds, once

7 yard line - 20 shots:
5 shots in 10 seconds, once
1 shot in 3 seconds, 5 times
2 shots in 4 seconds, once
3 shots in 6 seconds, once
5 shots in 15 seconds, once

15 yard line - 10 shots:
2 shots in 6 seconds, once
3 shots in 9 seconds, once
5 shots in 15 seconds, once

When you have observed at least once the shooting test for CHL, than we talk again about people should shoot in the attackers legs.
Well I call such thinks Classroom knowledge implemented from Teachers that live a by government well protected life and have no idea about the world outside a classroom.


----------



## SailDesign

PT111Pro said:


> Hummm
> 
> <humungous snip!>
> 
> Well I call such thinks Classroom knowledge implemented from Teachers that live a by government well protected life and have no idea about the world outside a classroom.


See the first post on this page, PT111


----------



## Tip

Hey Sail -- keep in mind when advocating shoot to wound that Mr. Brown was shot, and wounded, FIVE times in a couple of different volleys and STILL apparently refused to stop -- right up until the fatal shot stopped the threat.
Tell me again how shoot to wound is gonna work....


----------



## SailDesign

Tip said:


> Hey Sail -- keep in mind when advocating shoot to wound that Mr. Brown was shot, and wounded, FIVE times in a couple of different volleys and STILL apparently refused to stop -- right up until the fatal shot stopped the threat.
> Tell me again how shoot to wound is gonna work....


Look at the post above yours.... Do I have to say "Uncle" every time someone posts here now?


----------



## Tip

Nope - saw that after I posted - sorry.


----------



## SailDesign

Tip said:


> Nope - saw that after I posted - sorry.


Not a worry


----------



## BackyardCowboy

People like Steve who live along the coast have a better chance of making (shoot him in the legs) work, as they're more likely to run into a squid or octopus there.


----------



## XD40inAVL

*Scenario: 1*
You are attacked and you have two forms of self-defense equipment, (#1) pepper spray (non-lethal) and a (#2) gun (lethal).

Now it is decision time, which level of force will be required to repel this attack? If I spray them with pepper spray will they stop? What if they don't?

I doubt anyone would have time to try #1 and if it failed then attempt to use option #2, for the simple reason if #1 failed to repel the attack, and now the #2 option, isn't an option because you are now incapacitated, dead, or the bad guy now has control of #2, your gun.

*Scenario: 2*
You are attacked and you have two forms of self-defense equipment, pepper spray and a gun.

You decide the threat is a serious enough threat to go to option #2, your handgun, and you shoot the bad guy and stop the threat. You are safe, the threat has been stopped, and the bad guy is either running away, wounded or dead.

Now in the aftermath the local legal system (cops, DA and even the media) all challenge your choice to defend yourself with a lethal weapon when you also had a non-lethal option with you. Now you could face legal problem and possible civil lawsuit because you chose to use lethal force when non-lethal was an option.

I don't carry non-lethal defense unless it is the only option because I can see that either the failure of non-lethal option leaves me incapacitated or worse, and going with a lethal option with legal problems (that would exceed a justified use of lethal force) because I chose lethal over non-lethal)


----------



## SouthernBoy

PT111Pro said:


> Hummm
> Shoot to wound is illegal. The question is why shot at all if you are not in a life threatening situation. And I have to agree. *Shoot someone only to stay my ground is a dangerous behavior that should not be tolerated.*


I suspect you mean "Stand your ground". Why is this a bad thing? I will tell you that if you have a way out and can take it safely, then the prudent man will do just this. However if not, then standing your ground and meeting force with greater force (read that as enough to overpower the threat) IS what a prudent man should do.

"Stand your ground" simply means that if you have a legal right to be where you are and you are not part of the problem or its escalation, then you have a right to stand your ground. It is not cast in stone and does not mean you can't take a different decision to assure your safety and well being.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

BackyardCowboy said:


> People like Steve who live along the coast have a better chance of making (shoot him in the legs) work, as they're more likely to run into a squid or octopus there.


I differentiate between creatures with two legs and all the other ones.
I only shoot the other ones when I'm hungry. Well, except certain creatures with no legs at all, and jellyfish. And things that're chasing me, like spiders.
But if you've got two legs, watch out!

Got an itch in your foot? I can fix that.
Now, hold still...


----------



## Cait43

A firearm is a tool...... As with all tools there is a purpose to each one.....

A firearm was designed to kill..... Hunting for food, self protection and unfortunately used in wars(a self protection of sorts)........

Whether it is law enforcement or civilian and there is a threat to life the *only* option is to shoot to kill.......

One does not use a hammer to only drive the nail half way.....

One does not use a saw to partially cut a board........

Etc., etc., etc.


----------



## BackyardCowboy

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Got an itch in your foot? I can fix that.


.... and teach you to dance at the same time.


----------



## Sempervigilans

Not at all, Sail. And by all means, you're entitled to your opinions, and everyone looks at things through the filters of their own personal knowledge and experience. And there's definitely reasoning and logic behind your original argument. I'm glad you're willing to discuss and are open to different points of view. You definitely bring something to the table.


----------



## Sempervigilans

Cait43 said:


> A firearm is a tool...... As with all tools there is a purpose to each one.....
> 
> A firearm was designed to kill..... Hunting for food, self protection and unfortunately used in wars(a self protection of sorts)........
> 
> Whether it is law enforcement or civilian and there is a threat to life the *only* option is to shoot to kill.......
> 
> One does not use a hammer to only drive the nail half way.....
> 
> One does not use a saw to partially cut a board........
> 
> Etc., etc., etc.


I agree with that logic to a point, and I follow the same. If you draw, you draw to end the fight. Stop the threat. However, it's also vital that you put the nails where they actually belong...and measure well before you cut that wood. I think what some people are arguing these days is that police officers need to be absolutely sure of their shots and the necessity to make them. I won't second guess or "monday morning quarterback" another's decision to draw and fire in a situation, however...I do see the need for more frequent updates and improvements in tactics and training.


----------



## SailDesign

Sempervigilans said:


> Not at all, Sail. And by all means, you're entitled to your opinions, and everyone looks at things through the filters of their own personal knowledge and experience. And there's definitely reasoning and logic behind your original argument. I'm glad you're willing to discuss and are open to different points of view. You definitely bring something to the table.


Thanks, SV -and backatcha. My "filters" consist of target shooting for 50 years on and off, and a very different culture to what is found in the inland chunks of this country.


----------



## PT111Pro

> cait43
> Whether it is law enforcement or civilian and there is a threat to life the only option is to shoot to kill.......
> One does not use a hammer to only drive the nail half way.....
> One does not use a saw to partially cut a board.......


Right, that is how it supposed to be.
May some watching to much TV, I guess. How else should they come up with such insane suggestions.

A Gun is not a toy, not something that you brag in the school with.
A gun don't settles arguments.

Showing a gun, gun flashing is the most dangerous behavior that someone can do. It does not solve any situation. It makes it worse.
Standing the ground with a weapon? You should think twice. How do you explain that after the fact? I don't even stay the ground in my house when burglers coming in. If I have the time to go out the other door I will and take my Samsung AT&T 9.11 magnum to call the cavalry.

Shoot them in the legs. What else is your wish? Pulling a firearm is not a TV soap opera. 
The average life threatening attack distance is between 3-10 yards. Everything further is not life threatening anymore. Shooting someone in a distance of 25 yards and you have a lot to explain.
A female or male attacker with a 2X2 or a knife eliminates a combat distance in less than a second. That is the time frame for a defendant to pull the firearm out, aim and shoot. Less than a second to shoot on a leg that is may only 6 inch thick and moves very fast. 
Only 20% of the defensive shooting hit the target and from this 20% that actually hit are only 35% deathly.

Range practice, shooting on paper targets is fun, makes someone familiar with the tool, but for self defense preparation almost useless.

Sometimes people just don't think and should go back to the TV soap operas.


----------



## SouthernBoy

PT111Pro said:


> Standing the ground with a weapon? You should think twice. How do you explain that after the fact? *I don't even stay the ground in my house when burglers coming in.* If I have the time to go out the other door I will and take my Samsung AT&T 9.11 magnum to call the cavalry.


In my state, this not required or expected of a homeowner. And in my house, it could damned well be suicide if a BG or BG's is in my home since I live in a two-story single family house.



PT111Pro said:


> The average life threatening attack distance is between 3-10 yards. Everything further is not life threatening anymore. *Shooting someone in a distance of 25 yards and you have a lot to explain.*


Not if they're a clear and imminent threat. But yes you are correct in that most of the time, attacks come within pretty close distances and confines.

And you're also right about some people not thinking things through and this includes yourself (this is in no way meant to be a flame). What I mean by this is that what may be true or the law in one state may be entirely different in others. You must take this into consideration when making generalized statements.

For example, I did a paper in college in the later 1970's* about the use of firearms for home defense. In my research I found six states that required a homeowner and his family to exit their home, if this could be done safely, before using deadly force in their defense against an intruder. I had a very hard time imagining this since nothing like this exists where I live. But six states back then had laws on their books requiring this of their citizens. This is called "duty to retreat" and I believe is still on the books in some states.

* I went back to college in 1977, 13 years after finishing high school.


----------



## Bisley

I don't intend to ever shoot anyone. 

I carry a weapon because the possibility exists that something outside of my ability to control in a dangerous situation could arise. I do, however, intend to win, if the prize for winning is my own survival or the survival of some other innocent person. I will take no chances, once the situation has escalated to the point where my 'winning' is in doubt, and my calmness, or lack thereof, will determine my response. 

One thing that I am fairly certain of is that any such incident will not be recognizable as being any one of the possible scenarios I have imagined. There will be uncertainty at every turn, and any decision to use lethal force will be questioned. The first thing to do is survive, and hope that you were right to do whatever you did that caused that outcome. The idea that an assaulted person will have the opportunity to mull over shot placement is ridiculous to me. I only hope that my decent shooting skills don't abandon me, if I do ever need them.


----------



## PT111Pro

> SouthernBoy
> In my state, this not required or expected of a homeowner. And in my house, it could damned well be suicide if a BG or BG's is in my home since I live in a two-story single family house.


I understand and in Texas also is the castle rule in place. But anyway. I don't even shoot a degenerated when I have the possibility to avoid it. You see I am a Christian and to follow Christ you shall not kill. Back when I was a atheist I didn't had that problem at all. For me, and only for me is that so, that that is my rule regardless of state rules that may apply.
I don't hesitate on the other hand, if I feel trapped and attacked, to pull the trigger until my gun and the 2 magazines on my belt are empty. Don't play there. I know how to do that, and don't use a sidearm in combat for the first time.


> SouthernBoy
> Not if they're a clear and imminent threat. But yes you are correct in that most of the time, attacks come within pretty close distances and confines.


I want to see that. You must be in an aisle between houses without door ore in a big old cemented tube to shoot someone in a distance of 25 yards. Like I said you have than a lot of explaining to do.


> SoutherBoy
> For example, I did a paper in college in the later 1970's* about the use of firearms for home defense. In my research I found six states that required a homeowner and his family to exit their home, if this could be done safely, before using deadly force in their defense against an intruder.


You right. I will go out when this is for me a very obvious and safe option. I don't run out the back door without knowing what is waiting there for me.

I don't pull my weapon and don't shoot. Pulling the gun out and shoot best triple Tap on the first target is that what I was trained for and what I still exercise. 
But I don't want to shoot someone. I don't need that on my plate if I can avoid it.

But everyone should know. Pulling a gun and not shooting is the greatest danger that someone could go into. I told even my wife. When the gun get pulled out, the time for arguments are over. That is the time to shoot and ask later.


----------



## SouthernBoy

Bisley said:


> I don't intend to ever shoot anyone.
> 
> *I carry a weapon because the possibility exists that something outside of my ability to control in a dangerous situation could arise.* I do, however, intend to win, if the prize for winning is my own survival or the survival of some other innocent person. I will take no chances, once the situation has escalated to the point where my 'winning' is in doubt, and my calmness, or lack thereof, will determine my response.
> 
> One thing that I am fairly certain of is that any such incident will not be recognizable as being any one of the possible scenarios I have imagined. There will be uncertainty at every turn, and any decision to use lethal force will be questioned. The first thing to do is survive, and hope that you were right to do whatever you did that caused that outcome. The idea that an assaulted person will have the opportunity to mull over shot placement is ridiculous to me. I only hope that my decent shooting skills don't abandon me, if I do ever need them.


While having a simple lunch at a local Taco Bell maybe two years ago, someone asked my why I carried like that (my sidearm at that particular moment was openly visible). I answered him, "So I don't have to use it". He, his son, and I then commenced a most pleasant and fruitful conversation.


----------



## SouthernBoy

PT111Pro said:


> I understand and in Texas also is the castle rule in place. But anyway. I don't shoot a human being when I have the possibility to avoid it. You see I am a Christian and to follow Christ you shall not kill. For me, and only for me is that so that I don't kill anyone if there is a way out, not even a low life of that cockroach of a burglar. That my rule regardless of state rules that may apply.
> I don't hesitate on the other hand, if I feel trapped and attacked, to pull the trigger until my gun and the 2 magazines on my belt are empty. Don't play there. I know how to do that, and don't use a sidearm in combat for the first time.
> 
> I want to see that. You must be in a aisle between houses without door ore in a big old cemented tube to shoot someone in a distance of 25 yards. Like I said you have than a lot of explaining to do.
> 
> You right. I will go out when this is for me a very obvious option. I don't run out the back door without knowing what is waiting there for me.
> 
> I don't pull my weapon and don't shoot. Pulling the gun out and shoot best triple Tap on the first target is that what I was trained for and what I still exercise. But I don't want to shoot someone. I don't need that on my plate if I can avoid it.
> 
> But everyone should know. Pulling a gun and not shooting is the greatest danger that someone could go into. I told even my wife. When the gun get pulled out, the time for arguments are over. That is the time to shoot and ask later.


*"I want to see that. You must be in a aisle between houses without door ore in a big old cemented tube to shoot someone in a distance of 25 yards. Like I said you have than a lot of explaining to do."*
If a BG is firing at you at a distance of, say, 25 yards and you have not cover available, you'd be wise to return fire if you are able.

*"You see I am a Christian and to follow Christ you shall not kill."*
I don't believe Christ ever told us not to kill. The Ten Commandments does say, "Thou shall not do murder". Murder is entirely different than killing.

There are are times when pulling your sidearm is perfectly fine and in line with the law. For example, if you hear someone in your home, you had better have your gun in hand and ready to use it.(to be sure, there are other good examples as well). Now brandishing is another matter.

There are even a few situations where shooting someone in the back would be justifiable. All this shows is that there are a host of exceptions to every case.


----------



## PT111Pro

> SouthernBoy
> If a BG is firing at you at a distance of, say, 25 yards and you have not cover available, you'd be wise to return fire if you are able.


You are better be good if you shoot at me at a distance of 25 yards. Be aware I fire back immediately and 25 yards is my distance. Sure U R right in that case.


> SouthernBoy
> I don't believe Christ ever told us not to kill. The Ten Commandments does say, "Thou shall not do murder". Murder is entirely different than killing.


Weeelll - Killing, Murder. It's a question of definition at least for me. I - for me had decided that a burglar in my house is first a burglar and not a killer or murder. If I have a safe way out I will not kill her, because that would be murder in my book, because I had an alternative. Different is, when I see any kind of tool in her hands. I don't spend a lot of time to figure out what she holds. When she surprised me when I sleep, doesn't matter if I lay in bed at night or take a Saturday afternoon nap, I will shoot the degenerated in my house immediately without any hesitation.

Again, when I pull my gun I shot. I don't ask questions while I hold a gun. A gun in my hands makes bang as son I indentify a target. That is just how it is. 
The only way I hold a gun and don't bang is, when the degenerated laying on the belly awaiting the cavalry. But I will have the finger on the trigger and the trigger pulled to the break point. That would be a very nervous situation. The wrong move of the degenerated and his/her mom and dad will cry big tears in TV, because they have to look immediately for a different way of income.


----------



## SailDesign

SouthernBoy said:


> *<snippage!>
> I don't believe Christ ever told us not to kill. The Ten Commandments does say, "Thou shall not do murder". Murder is entirely different than killing.
> 
> <more snip>*


*

Actually, if you grew up with the King James Version, the Commandments state very bluntly, "Thou Shalt Not Kill". This version on the Bible was "current" from 1611 until the newer versions started to appear (if I remember correctly) around the late 60's and early 70's.*


----------



## pic

Bisley said:


> I don't intend to ever shoot anyone.
> 
> I carry a weapon because the possibility exists that something outside of my ability to control in a dangerous situation could arise. I do, however, intend to win, if the prize for winning is my own survival or the survival of some other innocent person. I will take no chances, once the situation has escalated to the point where my 'winning' is in doubt, and my calmness, or lack thereof, will determine my response.
> 
> One thing that I am fairly certain of is that any such incident will not be recognizable as being any one of the possible scenarios I have imagined. There will be uncertainty at every turn, and any decision to use lethal force will be questioned. The first thing to do is survive, and hope that you were right to do whatever you did that caused that outcome. The idea that an assaulted person will have the opportunity to mull over shot placement is ridiculous to me. I only hope that my decent shooting skills don't abandon me, if I do ever need them.


Very realistic, I like it. 
:smt1099


----------



## Steve M1911A1

SailDesign said:


> Actually, if you grew up with the King James Version, the Commandments state very bluntly, "Thou Shalt Not Kill". This version on the Bible was "current" from 1611 until the newer versions started to appear (if I remember correctly) around the late 60's and early 70's.


It's a mistake to rely upon the words used in the KJV. King James's panel of translators seem not to have done a very good job of it.
They knew Latin and Greek, and some Hebrew, but no Aramaic.
Witness all those words in *red*, so marked because the panel found them untranslatable and, instead, "winged it."

More modern versions, although lacking the poetic flow of the KJV's beautiful English, are much better translations from the oldest existing manuscripts.

"Thou shalt not murder" is indeed a more correct translation.


----------



## SouthernBoy

Steve M1911A1 said:


> It's a mistake to rely upon the words used in the KJV. King James's panel of translators seem not to have done a very good job of it.
> They knew Latin and Greek, and some Hebrew, but no Aramaic.
> Witness all those words in *red*, so marked because the panel found them untranslatable and, instead, "winged it."
> 
> More modern versions, although lacking the poetic flow of the KJV's beautiful English, are much better translations from the oldest existing manuscripts.
> 
> "Thou shalt not murder" is indeed a more correct translation.


Thank you for this. I had learned this from someone who I trust to know these matters as I am certainly not a biblical scholar.


----------



## SouthernBoy

PT111Pro;

There is a HUGE difference between killing and murder. All murder is killing but not all killing is murder. Murder is unjustifiable or inexcusable homicide. Killing is homicide of all definitions, including justifiable or excusable (we're talking humans with all of this).

A burglar in your home can be anything. A petty thief, a rapist, a murder... anything. What is important is how the law views a burglar. In Virginia, someone who breaks into your home during the night is a burglar. If he does this during the daytime, he is a trespasser. Big difference in how you respond to this (which I won't elaborate at the moment).

As for shooting whenever you pull your gun on someone, that is also something that you don't want to say is an absolute. For example, suppose as soon as you go for your gun, get it out, and start to align on a BG he sees exactly what is about to happen and takes off running. You do not want to shoot him then unless there is a VERY clear and legally valid reason for not doing this.


----------



## SailDesign

Steve M1911A1 said:


> It's a mistake to rely upon the words used in the KJV. King James's panel of translators seem not to have done a very good job of it.
> They knew Latin and Greek, and some Hebrew, but no Aramaic.
> Witness all those words in *red*, so marked because the panel found them untranslatable and, instead, "winged it."
> 
> More modern versions, although lacking the poetic flow of the KJV's beautiful English, are much better translations from the oldest existing manuscripts.
> 
> "Thou shalt not murder" is indeed a more correct translation.


Never seen red writing in a KJV bible... Certainly never had in the bible I had at school, and I just checked my wife's - none in there either....  A US thing, erhaps Although the old Family Bible from 1830-something had none, either.

I've seen red in modern ones, anything Jesus said is in red in some of them.


----------



## SailDesign

SouthernBoy said:


> PT111Pro;
> 
> There is a HUGE difference between killing and murder. All murder is killing but not all killing is murder. Murder is unjustifiable or inexcusable homicide. Killing is homicide of all definitions, including justifiable or excusable (we're talking humans with all of this).
> 
> A burglar in your home can be anything. A petty thief, a rapist, a murder... anything. What is important is how the law views a burglar. In Virginia, someone who breaks into your home during the night is a burglar. If he does this during the daytime, he is a trespasser. Big difference in how you respond to this (which I won't elaborate at the moment).
> 
> As for shooting whenever you pull your gun on someone, that is also something that you don't want to say is an absolute. For example, suppose as soon as you go for your gun, get it out, and start to align on a BG he sees exactly what is about to happen and takes off running. You do not want to shoot him then unless there is a VERY clear and legally valid reason for doing so.


I still think James Taylor had it right - you just can't kill for Jesus. ...


----------



## SouthernBoy

SailDesign said:


> I still think James Taylor had it right - you just can't kill for Jesus. ...


If I'm not mistaken, didn't Jesus tell his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords? Even he knew that there are evil people in the world who think nothing of doing you harm.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

SailDesign said:


> I still think James Taylor had it right - you just can't kill for Jesus. ...


...Or Allah. Or Jehovah. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for that matter.

If you kill, you are killing to further only your own agenda. Your God, or gods, have nothing to do with it.



SailDesign said:


> Never seen red writing in a KJV bible...


You're right.
In my own KJV, the stuff which I thought used to be set off in *red* is in _*italics*_ instead.
I believe that I was mis-remembering an antique Bible they used in the last high school I attended, which, my memory said, did have red lettering to represent translational conjecture. It, too, was probably italics.


----------



## SailDesign

Steve M1911A1 said:


> ...Or Allah. Or Jehovah. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for that matter.
> 
> If you kill, you are killing to further only your own agenda. Your God, or gods, have nothing to do with it.
> 
> You're right.
> In my own KJV, the stuff which I thought used to be set off in *red* is in _*italics*_ instead.
> I believe that I was mis-remembering an antique Bible they used in the last high school I attended, which, my memory said, did have red lettering to represent translational conjecture. It, too, was probably italics.


Either way, I guess I grew up with "Thou shalt not kill" so that's what I'll stick with.


----------



## SouthernBoy

SailDesign said:


> Either way, I guess I grew up with "Thou shalt not kill" so that's what I'll stick with.


Let me ask you this, if I may (remember, I am not a biblical scholar).

I have also seen and heard of the "Thou shall not kill" commandment, as have most, and from what I learned maybe 20 or more years ago, this was not the original text... which does make sense that it wasn't. For if we are to believe that it says, "Thou shall not kill" then that would be all encompassing and would even include killing in time of war and for the necessity of saving one's own life. So if you were to kill someone who was about to kill you (in your belief) or a member of your family, then you would be violating this holy commandment.

I don't believe this to be the case. Some killing is not only necessary and prudent, it is downright the only path to take. Now I know there are some people who postulate that ALL killing is wrong and they would never do this under any circumstances, even to save their child. I won't go into what I think of people like this but suffice it to say, let's just hope their gene pool dries up.

So for my ignorance of things religious, how do people get around the "Thou shall not kill" mantra when considering mortal self defense?


----------



## SailDesign

SouthernBoy said:


> Let me ask you this, if I may (remember, I am not a biblical scholar).
> 
> I have also seen and heard of the "Thou shall not kill" commandment, as have most, and from what I learned maybe 20 or more years ago, this was not the original text... which does make sense that it wasn't. For if we are to believe that it says, "Thou shall not kill" then that would be all encompassing and would even include killing in time of war and for the necessity of saving one's own life. So I you were to kill someone who was about to kill you (in your belief) or a member of your family, then you would be violating this holy commandment.
> 
> I don't believe this to be the case. Some killing is not only necessary and prudent, it is downright the only path to take. Now I know there are some people who postulate that ALL killing is wrong and they would never do this under any circumstances, even to safe their child. I won't go into what I think of people like this but suffice it to say, let's just hope their gene pool dries up.
> 
> So for my ignorance of things religious, how do people get around the "Thou shall not kill" mantra when considering mortal self defense?


I've often wondered that myself. I am completely irreligious, but have had to study it from time to time. Certainly in the UK, the KJV was The Word, and the "Shalt Not Kill" was a puzzler. Luckily, they had the Old Testament to fall back for that kind of thing. 

Kidding aside, I don't think anyone ever mistook it for the Absolute Word. History is too full of cases where it was necessary and prudent. The current "Thou shalt not commit murder" is closer to the way it was interpreted, so it is probably best.


----------



## pic

Steve M1911A1 said:


> ...Or Allah. Or Jehovah. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for that matter.
> 
> If you kill, you are killing to further only your own agenda. Your God, or gods, have nothing to do with it.
> 
> You're right.
> In my own KJV, the stuff which I thought used to be set off in *red* is in _*italics*_ instead.
> I believe that I was mis-remembering an antique Bible they used in the last high school I attended, which, my memory said, did have red lettering to represent translational conjecture. It, too, was probably italics.


Unbelievable!! 
I googled ,,,,there is a "flying spaghetti monster"


----------



## Bisley

I read for entertainment, or occasionally to find solutions to problems that other, wiser people have managed to overcome. I never assume that anything I read is the final word, because I have seen too many writings successfully discredited, including some that I once believed to be 'carved in stone.' Right or wrong, the various biblical translations fall within that purview, although I do believe that most of the world's wisdom is to be found among those writings. I don't necessarily think that the Bible tells me what to do, but knowing what other, wiser men thought about certain situations or events might be helpful in deciding what principles to live by.

That being the case, I have to trust in my perceived ability to distinguish between misguided behavior and 'evil' or malicious behavior. Someone who is running away with my flat screen may just be misguided, but most importantly, the threat is diminishing as he gets further and further away. This gives me about five seconds to mull over the merits of the Castle Doctrine and the general tendencies of Texas grand juries, as well as my personal feelings about exercising those 'rights.' Again, how I proceed will likely depend on my ability (or inability) to remain calm and more or less rational.

On the other hand, consider a charging brute with a club or knife, or maybe a rat-faced punk at 25 yards waving an AK-47 around, or any other stereotypical bad guy that you can imagine. Any of them can be assumed to have evil intent, if you are the focus of their attention. But, I can only react, based upon a decision that I may have to make in the time it takes to blink. Mistakes will be made, and the righteousness of all involved will be judged by people who cannot imagine what was going through the mind of each participant during the actual event. Hopefully, everyone involved will survive and the bad guy(if he really was) will seek rehabilitation, rather than revenge, and I won't have nightmares and/or legal proceedings to deal with for the rest of my life. 

The point of the above ramblings is to give pause to those folks who casually announce what will happen if they are ever attacked. You don't know what will happen. You probably won't immediately understand what is happening, even as it is happening. After all of your preparation is done to survive an attack, the likelihood of your actions being correct and adequate is still low, unless your attacker makes mistakes, or you are very lucky...or in a very few cases, very good. Your best chance is identifying a potentially dangerous set of circumstances before you become involved in it, and avoiding it entirely.


----------



## SailDesign

pic said:


> Unbelievable!!
> I googled ,,,,there is a "flying spaghetti monster"


DO try to keep up, pic.


----------

