Where would you shoot a bad guy in self defense?

[Steve MI]

where ever i can see. chest first head second, but if he is in my home and hiding behind a corner with his big toe barly around the corner im going to try and put a bullet right in his toe

Why not shoot them through the wall?

 

[rhino]

Why not shoot them through the wall?

Maybe 'cause you can't see what else is there?

If I knew for sure that:

1. The individual was definitely a threat to my well-being; and
2. There was nothing or no one else on the other side of that wall that probably shouldn't get shot . . .

I wouldn't have a problem demonstrating how bullets penetrate drywall very nicely.

Otherwise, I'd hesitate and consider other plans. I might still do it, but probably not with the same level of enthusiasm.

 

[44 MAGNUM SHOOTER]

In his forehead, eyes, mouth, ears, nose, neck, chest, arms, belly ......

 

[42769vette]

Why not shoot them through the wall?

mudding and sanding drywallisn't to bad. but there is the problem of matching paint and possibly painting the whole room, and painting is worse than patching carpet. i can patch a piece of carpet patched easier than painting. just hope the bullet doesn't hit any plumbing or wireing since i have a crawl space under most of the house, and i dont mean a bend over and walk crawl space. i mean a "take a shovel with you to get under joices" crawl space.

 

[finity]

I always figured if I was in a position where I had to shoot at someone then it is shoot to kill. I always laugh when people say why didnt he shoot to disable like in the movies. LOL. Because it's not the movies.

No, No, No.

You aren't "shooting to kill". You are "shooting to stop the threat". There is a big difference in the way this is perceived by the legal system.

You have the right to defend yourself from a threat. If someone dies as a result of your legally using deadly force to stop the threat then so be it.

YOU DON'T have the right to carry out an extra-judicial execution of someone. Otherwise you could be charged with murder.

Like this guy in OK:

NewsOK

 

[jeremy]

Ida shot em da face wit my Glock fordey...

 

[Wabatuckian]

Here is a thought that may or may not have come up (I've not caught up on the thread):

There is something instinctual about preserving the crotch area, especially for guys.

I once asked a somewhat famous firearms instructor what he would do if he were in a box canyon, armed only with a .22, hunting jackrabbits, and was attacked by some insane human.

He said he would aim for the crotch for this reason.

Josh

 

[Donnelly]

I'd shoot at his feet while yelling "Dance, mother****er, dance!"

 

[Glock21]

Here is a thought that may or may not have come up (I've not caught up on the thread):

There is something instinctual about preserving the crotch area, especially for guys.

I once asked a somewhat famous firearms instructor what he would do if he were in a box canyon, armed only with a .22, hunting jackrabbits, and was attacked by some insane human.

He said he would aim for the crotch for this reason.

Josh

You may want to go back and review the thread a bit.

 

[SKSnut]

Center mass, repeat as necessary.

exactly

 

[rhino]

There is a more important rationale than that. Whether or not the assailant lives or dies is inconsequential in the immediate sense. Whether or not you eliminate his/her ability to harm you is of primary interest. You really do want to literally stop the threat.

For instance, it's entirely possible to inflict a 100% fatal wound, but the person still has plenty of time and ability to continue harming or even kill you. If he dies after you're dead or crippled, you've lost. You have failed to stop the threat even though he's soon to be dead.

However it gets done and regardless of the status of the attacker afterward, the job is to stop or eliminate the threat before you are seriously harmed. Yeah, it might make a difference to carefully choose your language if the circumstances lead to criminal charges or civil litigation, but it's far more important to wrap your mind around what you need to get done.

That's what we mean by prevailing. Surviving is good, but not good enough.

No, No, No.

You aren't "shooting to kill". You are "shooting to stop the threat". There is a big difference in the way this is perceived by the legal system.

You have the right to defend yourself from a threat. If someone dies as a result of your legally using deadly force to stop the threat then so be it.

YOU DON'T have the right to carry out an extra-judicial execution of someone. Otherwise you could be charged with murder.

 

[Glock21]

There is a more important rationale than that. Whether or not the assailant lives or dies is inconsequential in the immediate sense. Whether or not you eliminate his/her ability to harm you is of primary interest. You really do want to literally stop the threat.

For instance, it's entirely possible to inflict a 100% fatal wound, but the person still has plenty of time and ability to continue harming or even kill you. If he dies after you're dead or crippled, you've lost. You have failed to stop the threat even though he's soon to be dead.

However it gets done and regardless of the status of the attacker afterward, the job is to stop or eliminate the threat before you are seriously harmed. Yeah, it might make a difference to carefully choose your language if the circumstances lead to criminal charges or civil litigation, but it's far more important to wrap your mind around what you need to get done.

That's what we mean by prevailing. Surviving is good, but not good enough.

+100,000 and 1

 

[IndyBeerman]

Shoot to the center of mass until the threat is neutralized, 2, 3, or more. Whatever it will take so that he does not level the front sight back on me. Aiming at the head is not an option because an overzealous prosecutor could over read this as a attempted execution instead of self defense.

Would like to explain my definition of center of mass (because each person's definition can be different) when it is possoble to do some practice on defensive shooting. I go for a 6x10 inch area extending from the cross of the shoulder blades down. As I said above aiming at the head "is not an option", one of the reason is as stated above, but the human skull is just built like a tank. It's got a huge job to protect our melons and it does that very well and I've heard of too many instances of ricochets that travel around and exit and never affect their ability to fight back other than possible blood flow into the eyes.

amateurs debate calibers, professionals debate mindset and techniques

This is so true, anything that can penetrate the human body can kill, heck even a ball point pen can upon the right insertion point. Shot placement is of of the utmost importance to not only stop the threat but to not expend your ammo and leave you with a paper weight because you blazed away.

There is a more important rationale than that. Whether or not the assailant lives or dies is inconsequential in the immediate sense. Whether or not you eliminate his/her ability to harm you is of primary interest. You really do want to literally stop the threat.

For instance, it's entirely possible to inflict a 100% fatal wound, but the person still has plenty of time and ability to continue harming or even kill you. If he dies after you're dead or crippled, you've lost. You have failed to stop the threat even though he's soon to be dead.

Stopping the threat is of the greatest importance, if the attacker can still raise his weapon to point at you the threat still exist and at that point if he/she thinks that they have a fatal would then there mindset could turn to taking you with them other than just fending off.


Take the shot and make it, incapacitate the attacker and seek cover to prevent any chance of his buddy that may lurking near by and avenging for him, make the 911 phone call all while maintaining mental awareness of what is still happening around you.

 

[Wabatuckian]

You may want to go back and review the thread a bit.

Ok, just did.

You cannot expect a commonly carried round to break the pelvic girdle. The 9mm won't do it reliably; a heavy loaded .45acp will, if you can hit the mark.

I'm talking about a purely psychological stop, not a structural stop.

Neither am I advocating the zipper technique.

Josh

 

[Wabatuckian]

In all seriousness folks, you won't find where your deficiencies are until you actually find yourself using your pistol in self-defense.

Since then, my whole personal philosophy has changed. The gun worked as designed, the Black Hills loaded Gold Dots worked as designed. I gripped the gun so tightly that it rotated upward. I fired three shots, two of which I did not hear.

I've since switched to a larger caliber (.45acp), lower capacity magazine (things happen too fast to be able to rip off 15 rounds, if you're aiming), and a FLAT MAINSPRING HOUSING.

It is a very individual experience and, because of this, I can only speak to my own individual experience.

Airsoft is excellent practice, as has been mentioned on this board before, but you know you're going out for pizza afterward.

As for the whole stopping power thing, Marshall was next to a guy in 'Nam who took a .51 caliber through the torso. Though he later died, he kept firing back with his M16.

Josh

 

[jeremy]

Shoot 'em in the kiester with rock salt!

 

[finity]

There is a more important rationale than that. Whether or not the assailant lives or dies is inconsequential in the immediate sense. Whether or not you eliminate his/her ability to harm you is of primary interest. You really do want to literally stop the threat.

For instance, it's entirely possible to inflict a 100% fatal wound, but the person still has plenty of time and ability to continue harming or even kill you. If he dies after you're dead or crippled, you've lost. You have failed to stop the threat even though he's soon to be dead.

However it gets done and regardless of the status of the attacker afterward, the job is to stop or eliminate the threat before you are seriously harmed. Yeah, it might make a difference to carefully choose your language if the circumstances lead to criminal charges or civil litigation, but it's far more important to wrap your mind around what you need to get done.

That's what we mean by prevailing. Surviving is good, but not good enough.

Great point & you're exactly right. Thanks.

 

[Yamaha]

Shoot 'em in the kiester with rock salt!

if the home made nonlethal stuff like that is used, thats a lawsuit pending.......basically, to use force, you must have a threat.....if someone presents a gun or knife threatening you, please tell me what rock salt would do....

 

[jeremy]

if someone presents a gun or knife threatening you, please tell me what rock salt would do....

My little brother would argue that it will completely take the fight right out of you... I am told it hurts REALLY bad...



PS originally it was meant in jest...

 

[HICKMAN]

Why not shoot them through the wall?

because then I'd get called a hacker....

oh wait, this isn't Call of Duty