Consider the following: you (or your children/spouse/loved ones) are in danger. You are armed and a good shot. For the purpose of my inquiry, make up your own scenario, but answer as truthfully as you can:
*Would you shoot another person to save your/your loved ones’ life/lives?
*If you would shoot another person, would you shoot to kill or only to disable?
*If shooting to kill, where would you aim and why?
For my answer – I was taught that one should never pick up a gun in self-defense unless one is willing (and preferably able) to kill. I would shoot to kill and my preferred point for entry is the throat. Why? Many reasons – most people do not guard their throat, and it’s a relatively large target for deadly effect. If one is a good enough shot, the jugular is easy enough to hit and the victim bleeds to death pretty quickly, if one misses the jugular, but blows away the esophagus, the victim suffocates. It’s probably (at least in my opinion) one of the best spots to shoot at for a quick kill.
**For the curious, this is inspired by the fact that I need to teach my daughter to shoot. We had an incident today, which, while not necessarily dangerous makes me want to be sure she is capable (even if only physically) of shooting to defend herself if the need arises.
As you mention below, there is no such thing as “shooting to disable” at least not if you want to stay alive.
This is true of ALL martial training through out history. Knights/samurai/modern (martialy sound) combatives clearly spell out, that the best way to defeat your opponent and come out alive, is to kill him as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Every moment someone that means to kill you is alive, is another moment they have to get it done.
Center of mass. I’m not a gun guy, but that’s were I’d aim, essentially the middle of the torso.
I’m not a gun guy, but it seems counter intuitive to shoot for the throat. First, it’s more mobile, it’s a smaller target, and finally, unless your target is wearing body armor, there is no “protecting” against a bullet.
Consider the following: you (or your children/spouse/loved ones) are in danger. You are armed and a good shot. For the purpose of my inquiry, make up your own scenario, but answer as truthfully as you can:
*Would you shoot another person to save your/your loved ones’ life/lives?
Yes
*If you would shoot another person, would you shoot to kill or only to disable?
Shoot to kill. What if you missed?
*If shooting to kill, where would you aim and why?
Chest or Head, depending on how far away the person was
I think I would shoot to kill out of sheer terror. I don’t think I would be able to stop until the guy stops twitching. I’m not a very violent person, but let’s be realistic.
One can stand sideways to make a smaller target. It’s a sticking point for me that I have always aimed for the throat when hunting (or on the rare occasion I have had to kill an otherwise “domesticated” animal) that I aim for the throat. The last time I had to do this, it took the animal (an aggressive stray dog) less than a minute to die.
I guess I am lucky in being brought up with older brothers and guns. I can shoot better than most of the soldiers I know who have been trained how to shoot guns. Heck, one of my brothers used to train others in the USAF how to shoot – and he still stands in awe of my ability to hit where I aim. Meh. It works for me. What you would do is what I would recommend for the average person, it just isn’t what I would do personally.
To save myself or someone else, without hesitation. Live today, worry about the consequences tomorrow. Any other way, there may not be a tomorrow. Oh, I might hesitate or try more options for non-combat in regard to just my own person, but if you’re talking about protecting a loved one, I shoot. Period.
Shooting to disable is asking for trouble. Especially if the other person is closing fast. Chances are you won’t get another shot. Now you’ve wounded them and you’re struggling for the gun. If they get it, they WILL kill you.
If you’ve been trained with a firearm for self-defense, you’re trained to shoot at Center of Mass. In other words, the torso. You’re taught to Shoot To End The Threat. That’s your defense. You shot the other person to end the threat (even if you empty the entire clip, you’re shooting until the threat comes to an end, not necessarily to kill the other person). If they fall back, wounded and don’t die, so much the better for everyone concerned. If they die, you were not “shooting to kill”, which may or may not be used against you in court, depending on circumstances, prosecution and local attitudes.
However, that being said, when you look at someone, where do you look? You look at their face. So when you’re stressed and you point a gun at someone, where are you pointing the gun? Their face. It takes some training to break that automatic thing and fire at center of mass.
There is no such thing, “shooting to disable.” Nor “shooting to kill.” If I shoot, I know there’s a chance I will be killing someone. If the goal is to kill – you need to shoot a few more times.
I would stop shooting if and when I were certain the assailant was no longer a danger. I guess in that sense you could say that my goal would be to at least disable the attacker.
Center of mass. because that way, there’s at least a good chance I’ll hit something and hopefully at least disable the attacker.
I always used to like to think I would aim for a leg, or maybe even a foot, because then they’d be writhing on the ground in pain and no longer a threat. Being a little older and wiser, though, I think there’d be a good chance of missing those two targets and then what was the point of shooting in the first place?
Yes.
Shoot to kill, or don’t bother shooting.
Center of mass, or head shot if it presents itself as an easier target. While I have little compunction about taking a life to preserve my own, or that of a loved one, i do not want to cause undue suffering.
Correct. Even a shot to an arm or leg can potentially be lethal. In the reality of defensive combat, there is no “shoot to kill” or “shoot to wound”; there is merely “shoot to hit,” and you keep shooting until the threat has stopped advancing.
The o.p.'s theory about targeting the throat is badly considered and ill-informed; the throat is a small target (about the size of an outstretched hand); the carotid arteries and jugular veins are narrow (see image). Puncturing the esophagus will do nothing to prevent the target from breathing, but might cause a bit of a problem swallowing solid foods. I believe the o.p. actually means the larynx and trachea, which will cause the target to suffocate, but it is hardly a quick kill. There is, of course, the spine which, if severed at this level would render the target a quadriplegic, but again, this is a relatively small target. There is the additional concern of there being relatively little “meat” in the throat to absorb the energy of a passing bullet, which means that the bullet is likely to pass through and through, posing a hazard to other people. A shot to the torso or, if close and relatively stationary, the head, is more likely to end up on target, do debilitating damage, and lose the bulk of its energy within the body (particularly if using expanding hollowpoint bullets) which is better for everyone involved.
It is better, of course, if the option is available, not to shoot at all. It’s all a very messy and expensive business, albeit occasionally unavoidable.
*Would you shoot another person to save your/your loved ones’ life/lives?
Damn straight.
*If you would shoot another person, would you shoot to kill or only to disable?
I am not the Lone Ranger. Of course I’d shoot to kill. If I am pointing a gun at that person it is because I intend to kill him unless he withdraws immediately.
*If shooting to kill, where would you aim and why?
Good Lord, have you ever actaully held a firearm? Center of mass.
I believe the o.p. actually means the larynx and trachea, which will cause the target to suffocate, but it is hardly a quick kill. There is, of course, the spine which, if severed at this level would render the target a quadriplegic, but again, this is a relatively small target. There is the additional concern of there being relatively little “meat” in the throat to absorb the energy of a passing bullet, which means that the bullet is likely to pass through and through, posing a hazard to other people. A shot to the torso or, if close and relatively stationary, the head, is more likely to end up on target, do debilitating damage, and lose the bulk of its energy within the body (particularly if using expanding hollowpoint bullets) which is better for everyone involved.