Are you shooting to temporarily stop or to eliminate the threat?

[JohnMcD348]

If lethal force is called for "MY" intent is to stop the threat. If the threat dies due to the action I am forced to do to him, then so be it. I wouldn't aim for a leg, or hand or try to cowboy shoot the gun from his hand, I aim for the center of mass. It may be the stomach, it may be the chest and stray round may even hit the head, arm , leg, shoulder, hip. It is not my intention to merely wound someone intent on harming my family or myself. If my families life or mine is in danger, I will protect and defend it to my greatest ability.

 

[mljdeckard]

What threat is stopped by intentionally wounding an already dangerous animal?

 

[flrfh213]

if i fire i am going com, i will defend my family and home....

 

[deano186]

I'd like to be able to say ...

I'd like to be able to say I'd do this or that in a life or death situation, but I've never been there. And from everything I've read about real-life gunfights there is almost no resemblance between what people would plan or expect and what happens.

 

[JShirley]

Get some decent instruction. Seriously. Unfortunately, I have heard much more total nonsense about firearms than any other subject, save one I won't mention.

Shoot to stop the threat. Always and forever. If the threat dies, so be it, but the intent was always to stop the threat.
Shooting for a limb is not only movie nonsense, in some states it will be illegal (shooting to maim). The only exception might be if you were in fear for your life, and a limb was the only target presented.

There's nothing else to be said on this subject. Making a deliberate decision that anyone who presents a potential threat to you and yours will be killed as a matter of course is not only poorly considered, but writing about it on a public board makes all firearms owners look bad, and the poster look like an idiot.

John