Wow, its been a while... Still rememberd my log on and PW LOL
This is a discussion on CCW "obligations", moral questions within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Wow, its been a while... Still rememberd my log on and PW LOL...
The use of deadly force in self defense is a shooting to kill.
Period. End of story.
Self Defense is a justification for what would be, in unjustified circumstances, murder.
You and everyone else may call it what they will to avoid looking directly at the cold hard truth: Putting the front sight on another human being and commencing a proper trigger press is shooting to kill.
Done with justification, it is self defense.
Done without justification, it is murder.
But it is still placing the front sight on target and commencing a proper trigger press.
The use of linguistic contortions is for people who are either not sure they can bring themselves to kill someone, or for people lacking a proper understanding of what self defense truly is, or those lacking the moral/ethical fortitude to look squarely at the results of a justified use of force deadly force...a dead person.
It's not pretty.
It's not politically correct.
When justifiable, it is not murder...and not subject to civil or criminal sanctions.
But it is still shooting to kill.
Calling it anything else diminishes the act, and that’s wrong.
Life isn't something inherently precious for everyone, because some people are cockroaches and just need to die...
But you shouldn't sugar coat or other wise use linguistic tricks to cope with the fact that you may have to take someone's life. Either accept it now, or deal with the mental consequences after the fact.
I am in complete agreement with Mitchell on this.
"Shooting to Stop" was at the time the "Politically Correct" term for "Shoot to kill"
If you're not shooting to kill, you're shooting to wound, shooting to wound is bad, shooting to wound indicates to me that "I didn't mean to kill him" which in my mind = man slaughter. You're either using lethal force or you're not, there is rarely a middle road, especially when it comes to using a firearm.
Shooting to stop, in that case, is not shooting to wound - it is acknowledging that if my shots stop the threat (dead or alive), then my need (justification) for self-defense has ended. I want the threat to stop as rapidly as possible and with greatest efficiency - but do not care whether that is accomplished via death or incapacitation.
A stop (not a wound) is the goal - the kill a potential acceptable co-incident of the action required to stop. If the action stops the threat and then, just for gravy, I put a few more in, then I am now guilty...
"To predict the behavior of ordinary people in advance, you only have to assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with the smallest possible expenditure of intelligence." Friedrich Nietzsche
I'm going to echo what most have said here.. First if just greatly depends on the situation. Just because I see a person with a gun I am not sure if he is the good guy or bad guy. But if it is very obvious that it is a bad guy and I think I have an excellent chance of prevailing, I'll take the shot. For example, if I'm behind him while he is trying to mow down a crowd of people, I probably have plenty of time to take a good aim right to the back of his head. Hopefully since I carry hollowpoint rounds, the rounds will not end up hurting anyone else.
But, I hate to say it, I'm not going to foolishly risk my life to save others I don't know. When I say foolishly, I mean take a course of action that is not likely to succeed.
oddly enough, this is the kind of scenario I find myself most often thinking of for myself. Since I don't really go out at night much, and rarely go anywhere besides the grocery store or the mall, I don't wind up in a lot of places where crime happens. So I've always figured if an incident occurs, it would be one of those situations where a crazy person goes into a restaurant, mall, or store and just starts randomly shooting people.
Freedom doesn't come free. It is bought and paid for by the lives and blood of our men and women in uniform.
NRA Life Member
"G" is a pharmaceutical salesmen for a corporation which isn't in good standing with the FDA...but it is on a first name basis with the DEA/ATF/FBI/IRS-CID.
One day, G is at a sales conference with prospective customers and a disagreement ensues over something or other...or maybe it was a competitor coming by offering better deals on merchandise...whatever...
G ends up with a 10mm in the melon and 3 rounds of 9mm in the belly.
It was a bad meeting. His head wound is entry behind the right ear, exit just to the right of the center-line of the back-center of the head.
That was about 10 years ago. Recently he was dragged by a car for a block. He really didn't slow down all that much from the impact, and was very upset at the cab driver who dragged him like that.
Your definition of "non-survivable" may be different than the other guy's...and it's not yours that matters.
I can't run due to an injury,I will get mine to a defendable position and wait ,I haven't seen too many active shooter scenarios where they moved with any tactics,it seems that they just walk and shoot,In Tx it's pretty likely he or they would encounter numerous CHL holders,and I'm gonna get outta the crossfire
"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
--Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .
Use the laws basic question for what the law is there to prevent: "Would any reasonable person believe my life or someone's else's is immediately threatened by a lethal attack?" And/or "Is my intervention with a weapon the only thing that will stop that attack with flight impossible?"
And a Last Variation: "Will the result of what I am about to do worsen the situation?"
In other words, the focus in on objective reality right now - and harm or help given to others, necessity of any lethal action etc. Not on internal moral sense. There's nothing wrong with a moral sense of course, but it's not as reliable as the Law's focus on objectivity of situation. You're taking about human life here - all lives.
Moreover, if you are truely "shooting to kill", you will not stop if the threat ceases and they are not dead yet, you would continue with the process and make sure that the person which caused you to use deadly force was in fact dead. In some instances that would be a criminal act in itself.
If you hunt and shoot a deer, hog, bear whatever and they go down and you walk up on the animal and they are not dead what does one do? They finish the job, even though the animal isn't going to get up and run, you either cut the throat, puncture the heart, or put another round in the head to "kill" the animal instead of letting them suffer.
In a self defense situation if you shoot and the attacker goes down and stops the fight or flees the fight are you going to "shoot to kill" by either walking up and putting two more in the heart and one in the brain or chase the attacker down shooting until they are in fact dead? No.
Should you use the equipment that is best for you, dependable gun, proven ammunition, and be proficient with it, absolutely. Should your goal be to put the rounds on target accurately and efficiently, yes. If this is done, is there a good chance that the attacker will die, sure. If the attack stops and the BG isn't dead should you continue to shoot to kill, nope.
Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
Texas CHL Instructor
Texas Hunter Education Instructor