I seriously doubt I will ever have a gun in my hands, but in theory I certainly would. What else would you shoot for?
I hope nobody ends up on the stand and is forced to swear under oath that their intention was to kill another human being. Might look bad.
Marc
I could do it to protect somebody I love. I might feel terrible about it later, but the attacker’s troubles would be over.
I know I can put six shots from a Dirty Harry gun into a chest-sized target ten yards away, so I’d shoot for the center of the body. (Of course, I’ve never had to shoot when my hands were shaky with adrenalin. I’ve heard that in combat or police shootout situations, the vast majority of shots don’t hit an intended target.)
Shooting a person who knows you’re there is nothing like shooting a game animal that doesn’t. If you seriously think you could hit a moving human in the jugular from anything greater than point-blank range, I have bad news for you- you’re going to miss.
Wow. You must be amazing to know so much about my ability to aim/shoot/hit based solely on a message board post. If you seriously think you know so much about my ability (or lack thereof as you would have it) to do what I say I can, I have bad news for you, hitting the throat of dog that is coming at you from 15 ft away is a little harder than hitting the throat of a human who will be walking/running upright. Thanks for your participation in the thread, though, it was quite valuable.
I’m shocked that so many people use the term “shoot to kill.” If you’re even in a situation where you have to shoot someone I’d advise you say you had to shoot to stop them, not that you shot to kill.
- Yes.
- Never point a gun at something you don’t intend to destroy.
- I don’t care how much training you have, hitting a moving target at any range besides point-blank is nearly impossible. When you figure in the adrenaline rush of being attacked and preparing to take another human life, I doubt anyone could aim accurately. Aiming for the center of mass provides the best chance of stopping the threat.
–FCOD
It’s got nothing to do with your ability; it has everything to do with the limit of human ability. That sort of accuracy just isn’t possible with a pistol.
I believe you could hit someone in the throat, if you’re as good as you say you are; I don’t believe that anyone can hit someone in the jugular. You’re talking about milimetric precision with a moving target; the most accurate handguns are going to give you 1-inch groups on a stationary target.
- Yes, easily. Don’t threaten my family, it makes me react.
B) I’d shoot to stop the threat. Not to kill, not to wound, just to stop.
III) Two in the heart, one in the head. Repeat as necessary.
That should stop the threat.
*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?
I would shoot to kill, pulling the trigger until I heard a “click”, then reload and call 911.
*If shooting to kill, where would you aim and why?
Center of mass. A friend who is a LEO taught me.
Only one of my reasons for aiming for the throat is the jugular. Again, I reiterate that I am not you and you are not me and YMMV. I know what I can and cannot do, but not what you can and cannot do. It’s funny how many people got caught up in this particular sticking point when my real curiosity was to see how many people would choose not to kill to save their own or their loved ones’ life/lives.
I wonder how many answers would change if I were to have left out the “loved ones” part – how many people would kill rather than be killed?
Yes, of course. Also if they were talking REALLY LOUDLY on their cell phone and there were no witnesses (kidding).
These are actually the same question. You aim center mass to make sure you hit them. This may be fatal. There’s no “shooting to disable” unless they’re asleep.
A better third question would be “Would you continue shooting your attacker after they are down?” My answer would be probably not, but it depends. Shooting someone in self defense is legally risky, but defensible. Shooting them again when they’re down is much less defensible. But if someone had actually succeeded in hurting my family, I’d have trouble restraining myself from simply executing them.
I almost included something similar, as I am a vindictive bitch and as a good friend put it once – “shit, you wouldn’t just kill them, you’d unload your weapon into them, then beat them about the head with the weapon until they were nothing but bloody mush before squatting over them and taking a much-needed, stress-relieving dump on them!” I’m pretty sure it’d have to involve one of my kids actually being hurt for me to poop on them, but yeh, I’d probably unload the weapon just to be sure.
Well, that’s fair enough, but what you originally said was…
…which is simply not true. As I said, it’s got nothing to do with what you can do or what I can do; it’s a matter of what any person could do. I’m not trying to insult you, any more so than if I told you you couldn’t run 100 yards in 5 seconds.
To answer your original question, I honestly don’t know. It more than likely won’t ever come up because I’ve never carried a gun and have no plans to do so. While I have no moral objection to personally shooting a stranger in defense of a loved one (or myself), I can’t definitively say I would shoot because I haven’t been in that situation.
ETA: By my count, only two people mentioned that particular sticking point at all. Did I miss something?
*Would you shoot another person to save your/your loved ones’ life/lives?
Without hesitation.
*If you would shoot another person, would you shoot to kill or only to disable?
There is no shoot to kill or disable in this situation, only shoot until the threat is ended.
*If shooting to kill, where would you aim and why?
Center of mass, pretending you could pick out a target while hopped up on adrenaline is delusional at best.
If any of you would like some real life experience with the effects of adrenaline in a firefight just find yourself a paintball range. After the first speedball round your hands will be shaking like you’d been slamming doubleshot espressos for the past hour.
*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 stop the threat. Keep shooting and advancing until threat is no longer a threat.
*If shooting to kill, where would you aim and why?
Two in the chest, one in the head. The good ol’ Mozambique.
Provided I don’t panic, (important consideration indeed, one never knows until tested) yes I’d shoot; I’d shoot to stop the threat, long-term recovery outlook to be attended to later; aim for center of mass.
If the weapon and my wits permit it, more than one shot at COM, if he’s still coming, try headshot. If target neutralized but still alive, will not seek to “finish up”.
Shots have different effects on different people. Getting the classic old-Western-movie style “flesh wound to the shoulder” would probably cause me to crap my pants and start wailing like a schoolgirl, I’m quite the pain wimp. Someone else could have a chest shot shred his aortic arch and for the next 15 seconds still keep swinging the axe…
As a pacifist, I must regretfully admit that I probably would shoot someone who was threatening my family. I have no idea if I would shoot to kill. In the past I have noticed that I am extremely effective in a crisis, so I have a feeling I might be aiming for the heart. Whether I would hit someone’s heart or not is up for debate, never having shot (or even held) any gun smaller than a rifle.
And remember, folks, you only want one side of what happened to be heard…
center of mass, in a heartbeat.
With a wheelgun though. My wife dislikes auto-loaders because of an experience with a small gun with a worn sear that kept trying to get off three shots with each trigger pull. I think it was a .25 or .32. In the house we keep a retired Detroit PD .38 Special because of my reading of Masad Ayoob’s studies of one-shot kills. My wife has small hands.
Sampiro, about the Gandhi Quote: “it’s in a letter in my possession”
The Smithsonian needs that letter. you could loan it to them and then your descendants could get it back in thirty years and sell it and each one of them could buy a house with the proceeds. I think I would get rid of the word “diaper” though. Maybe a judicious spill of period ink . . .
If you shoot him but don’t kill him, he might be paralyzed for life. And then you might have to spend the rest of your life working to pay his medical bills, if the juries and judges in your neck of the woods see fit.
I pray that I’m never forced to shoot anyone in self-defense. The legal hassle of it, and the media attention, would be an absolute nightmare.
Slothrop I don’t know all that much about handguns but I would guess that the little gun that your wife was using was a p.o.s. “saturday night special” made by Lorcin or Jennings or one of the other crap gun companies. Don’t let that experience put you off semi-autos for good.