Shoot to Kill OR Shoot to Injure?

[Speaknoevil]

You always shoot to kill. Always. If it's serious enough for you to pull a gun, you put them down. If it's a situation where you would want to "shoot to injure", you probably aren't justified pulling the weapon in the first place.

Plus, unless you're an expert marksman at a convenient range with the drop on the enemy and time to pick a target, and have practiced under combat conditions enough to not have it shake you, there is no way you're going to be able to successfully "shoot to injure". You drop them, period. You don't try and pull of some kind of trick shot that won't hurt them too badly. Besides which, even a shot in the shoulder or thigh could hit an artery and cause them to bleed out; any shot is a potential kill shot, the difference is the chance of death.

Always shoot to kill. Anyone talking about "shoot to injure" is probably talking out their ass.

You can take someone down without the execution shot.

[Jaylock]

I have a child, so I am going to empty whatever clip I have, then reload.

You may want to be careful, because you could end up being prosecuted for murder if you were to do that.

[Hogmanlolz]

Shoot to kill he is in my house, show no mercy. I have an AR-15 so im good if you disagree I have bad news for you..

[Deleted]

Plus, how do you shoot to injure? If I shoot someone in their leg, I could very well sever an artery, and they're dead in a few minutes anyway, especially if I'm using hollow points, which I am.

Shooting to injure just doesn't make any sense.

Which is why it is not taught by any professional LEO/Military service, shooting to injure is something best left to Hollywood and wannabe heroes. Few people realise just how many blood vessels run through the leg, instead of wounding them you are just giving them a very bloody and more violent death, as a sane man that is something I wish to avoid.

[Skarssen]

A lot of smartasses here it seems.

It's easy to imagine yourself holding a gun like Clint Eastwood when a thug approaches, throwing a smart yet funny line and gunning him down. Easy as fuck. It's way harder to actually do that.

Humans have a coded information, a kind of alghorytm, to prevent this. An ordinary man, holding a gun, would never even aim at somebodys head with an intention of killing him. Even if in a dangerous situation, most of gunshots are mere wounds, shots in the stomach or legs. Why? Because, despite the owner of the gun thinks about defending himself and his property, he cannot make himself kill another man.

Frankly speaking, if there would be ANY man who could just casually shoot somebody in the head defending his property, it means the whole system that allow people to have guns is wrong. Because that person is dangerous. He doesn't have a blockade that prevents him killing other people, and he utilizes this fact. I would be scared shitless knowing I live next to somebody who, with cold blood, shot somebody, whatever the situation was.

^ Someone who knows nothing about firearms, and has never been in combat.

[Deleted]

Humans have a coded information, a kind of alghorytm, to prevent this. An ordinary man, holding a gun, would never even aim at somebodys head with an intention of killing him. Even if in a dangerous situation, most of gunshots are mere wounds, shots in the stomach or legs. Why? Because, despite the owner of the gun thinks about defending himself and his property, he cannot make himself kill another man.

Nah actually, you're wrong about that.

[Deleted]

If you are in the USA : Shoot to kill.
If you are not in the USA: Try not to kill.

Indeed, if he is just after your stuff no need to take his life. A man life is not worth your TV, too many people are very keen to shoot to kill over something as easily replaceable as worldly possessions.

[Deleted]

If I have little time to react and I feel I have a chance of being attacked, shoot to kill.

If aggressor is standing with a knife threatening me I'd try reason with him and if need be probably shoot his leg.

[Lyriok]

Shoot to injure but it really depends on the situation, idealy I would want to simply neutralize the threat.

[anveena]

Um I will be shooting to kill. Why else would you be shooting at someone without the intentions to kill?

I couldn't careless as to why he broke into my house or how bad his life may be. He broke into my house and I don't know what his intentions are. So I'm going to assume he's there to harm me or whoever else is inside. If he happens to die from me shooting him too bad so sad. If he doesn't, well good for him, hopefully he learns his lesson from getting shot.

[openair]

A lot of smartasses here it seems.

It's easy to imagine yourself holding a gun like Clint Eastwood when a thug approaches, throwing a smart yet funny line and gunning him down. Easy as fuck. It's way harder to actually do that.

An ordinary man, holding a gun, would never even aim at somebodys head with an intention of killing him. Even if in a dangerous situation, most of gunshots are mere wounds, shots in the stomach or legs.

Frankly speaking, if there would be ANY man who could just casually shoot somebody in the head defending his property, it means the whole system that allow people to have guns is wrong. Because that person is dangerous. He doesn't have a blockade that prevents him killing other people, and he utilizes this fact. I would be scared shitless knowing I live next to somebody who, with cold blood, shot somebody, whatever the situation was.

Ordinary man? Maybe. Not everyone is ordinary. Murder has been commited where someone shot someone else in the head, in cold bold. It happens.

Frankly speaking, there is nothing casual about defending yourself against home invasion (the subject of the op). It is called fight or flight reflex and is a proven reflex, not a "coded blockade" or whatever other giberish you want to use.

[RenegadeXan]

you have a gun, he has a knife. You know, kind of how a mage can get a warrior down to 5% before even getting slap?

So yes, injure him, if hes going to attempt to throw the knife then ya, kill him.

[Skarssen]

Center of mass is a much better bet. If you've got an amazing shot, then more power to you. The other 99.99999999% of us though (including military/LE) should go for the center of mass. ;p

Always center of mass. This "shoot the gun out of his hand" is just Hollywood bullshit. Since we are talking about a home invasion were are also talking about a handgun situation, and even at 10-15ft range all but the most skilled sharpshooters aren't going to aim for anything other than center of mass. Hitting a moving target between the eyes with a pistol at 15 feet, reliably, means the shooter is an amazing marksman.

[Deleted]

A lot of smartasses here it seems.

It's easy to imagine yourself holding a gun like Clint Eastwood when a thug approaches, throwing a smart yet funny line and gunning him down. Easy as fuck. It's way harder to actually do that.

Humans have a coded information, a kind of alghorytm, to prevent this. An ordinary man, holding a gun, would never even aim at somebodys head with an intention of killing him. Even if in a dangerous situation, most of gunshots are mere wounds, shots in the stomach or legs. Why? Because, despite the owner of the gun thinks about defending himself and his property, he cannot make himself kill another man.

Frankly speaking, if there would be ANY man who could just casually shoot somebody in the head defending his property, it means the whole system that allow people to have guns is wrong. Because that person is dangerous. He doesn't have a blockade that prevents him killing other people, and he utilizes this fact. I would be scared shitless knowing I live next to somebody who, with cold blood, shot somebody, whatever the situation was.

This is true, humans are hardwired to NOT take another human life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vlGR7S2wcI

It takes training and brainwashing to make a real killer.

Edit: Doesnt mean they will not react when threatened though, you dont know how until it happens.

[Jtbrig7390]

Verbal response first.

Sorry but I disagree with this.

Like I said I don't think anyone has the right to take the life of another but with that said.

You break into my house you forfit your life I will shoot to protect myself and my family no verbal response first or warning you come in you will leave in ether a bag or handcuffs.

warning them is stupid "not saying your stupid" because you do not know if there armed and if they are what they are armed with.

[alexkeren]

If an intruder is in your home and has a knife and looks threatening, would you shoot to kill, or shoot to injure him?

On one hand, you have an intruder who has broken the law and is in your home. Your sanctuary. Your refuge from the storm of life if you will. Your wife, children, and pets are now in jeopardy, to say nothing of your valuables.

On the other hand you have another life, who may just be in need of food and shelter. If you shot to injure, you could get him a nice longish hospital stay to get free meals, get treated to his wounds, and have shelter for awhile.

If you shot to kill, you would have to live with that for the rest of your life.

What do you do?

Shoot to kill ... unless you already have gun trained on the person, if they are within 25 feet of you they can get to you before you could shoot them.

On the other hand, if you have a gun on them, immediately recognize they have a knife and they don't drop it and leave immediately upon warning of you having a gun and will use it, dead.


Why should I have to pay for their hospital stay, their food, and be in a position where they can sue me? What is mine is not their's.

[Endus]

you have a gun, he has a knife. You know, kind of how a mage can get a warrior down to 5% before even getting slap?

So yes, injure him, if hes going to attempt to throw the knife then ya, kill him.

Police training video; even trained officers, when approaching a guy with a knife, will get stabbed to death if they're less than 20 feet from the guy when he charges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9igSoJHEdUo

If they're a threat, put them down. Worry about the paperwork when your life isn't in danger.

[Okacz]

^ Someone who knows nothing about firearms, and has never been in combat.

Indeed, I was never in combat, and don't know a whole lot about firearms. I'm just sharing a knowledge I have from outer sources, like paper media or television. Knowledge, that somebody smarter than me, and probably many of us here, happens to have had before.

I'm not pulling stuff out of my ass, you know. I totally bet nobody here has ever shot a guy on this forum, and we are all simply imagining a situation. Like, when you can imagine being attacked by two unarmed thugs and are able to imagine yourself fighting them off, but in reality you would rather got your ass handed to you. Same here - in my mind, in such a situation, I know what choice would I make. But in real life? This is where human psychology starts working. Killing is not so easy as it seems to most of us.

[Radux]

Sorry but I disagree with this.

Like I said I don't think anyone has the right to take the life of another but with that said.

You break into my house you forfit your life I will shoot to protect myself and my family no verbal response first or warning you come in you will leave in ether a bag or handcuffs.

warning them is stupid "not saying your stupid" because you do not know if there armed and if they are what they are armed with.

Like I said, I prefer to think of pulling the trigger as an absolute last resort. When I say "verbal response first", I mean "Get the fuck out of my house now".
If they leave from that, great. No violence was needed. If he attempts to escalate the situation, so will my response.

Note: I will not actually warn them if I'm not already armed and willing to respond in appropriate manner.

[Deleted]

I wouldn't shoot at all. He has a knife. Unless he approaches me there's fuck all he can do. Upon seeing the gun he probably wets himself and gets the fuck out of there.