Shoot to kill or to stop?

My response in a lethal force encounter is to...

  • shoot to kill.

    Votes: 126 28.3%

  • shoot to stop.

    Votes: 319 71.7%
  • Total voters
    445
Status
Not open for further replies.
If I had to pull the trigger against a bad guy, I intend to kill him. If I wanted to "stop" him, I wouldn't be using lethal force by means of a gun.
 
The way it was put for me was if you have time to shoot to stop you have murdered someone. I feel if someone is trying to kill me I will kill them back, why do them a favor when they are not willing to return it?
 
Shooting to kill implies an offensive mindset, it makes you the aggressor. Shooting to stop implies a defensive mindset, it makes you the victim. Remember this: you were never shooting to kill, you were shooting to stay alive.
 
We all shoot to stop, BUT in order to do that we must shoot to kill.. We shoot to stop the threat, but only a fool would try to only wound enough to "stop". It perhaps works in the movies, but in real life it can very well get you killed!
Most are taught to shoot "center of mass", thats heart, lung, back bone (perhaps) or a head shot (double tap?). Why, to do maximum damage to stop the threat. How by hitting a vital area, which almost by definition is an at least potential "kill shot".
I won't draw my weapon unless it's a life or death situation, and I will shoot to stop the threat, see sentance number one..
My opinion nothing more. Be safe, CraigJS
 
i draw to stop the threat, i shoot to end it.

if im drawing my weapon my first thought is not to harm the other person, or to kill the other person, its to intimidate them into leaving me and mine alone.
 
Last edited:
The way it was put for me was if you have time to shoot to stop you have murdered someone. I feel if someone is trying to kill me I will kill them back, why do them a favor when they are not willing to return it?
Click to expand...

"Shoot to stop" is lawyer proofing yourself.

If you say you shot to kill, a prosecutor or lawyer will tear you a new butt in court.

Two things that you say and stick to is, "I feared for my life" and "I was just trying to stop him".
 
Last edited:
as a gun owner, i realize that my firearms are used in a defensive method and as such, i know that the results of that defense will most likely end up being that a person or persons that were a serious threat to me and my family will get some holes in them... i know that those holes stand a great chance of killing that person... i know that by owning a firearm, i carry a great responsibility and that i may be forced to use that firearm to defend myself... as such, do i want to take someones life? no i do not... will i use my firearm to defend myself? yes... do i look forward to having to do so? no i do not...
 
I sure as hail ain't writing what I'd do on a public forum so anyone could dig it up later and use it against me in court.

That would be kind'a stupid to me.:uhoh:
 
Shooting to kill is, to put it simply, shooting until you kill someone. Killing is your stated objective and goal. You are shooting until they die. If you run out of bullets, you will use other means to kill them. You will run over them with a rental car. You will hit them with an axe. You will stab them to death with a spork - whatever it takes to kill them.
Shooting to stop? Your goal is that the threat is stopped - by death, injury, or fear. You don't go into the situation with any other motive aside from surviving the encounter and stopping the threat to life/limb/property in time to do so. Shooting to stop is not less-than-lethal. It has every chance of being lethal - but killing is not the goal, it is a possible side-effect.
 
All points taken and this is a very interesting thread but...... you shoot to kill when you shoot to stop cause winging them makes no sense. otherwise you shouldnt carry a p-shooter;) IMO
 
It's called "lethal force" for a reason-because it's lethal. If I have no choice but to draw a weapon, I'm going for center mass. If they survive, good for them, but I am not going to further jeopardize myself at the expense of my assailant's well-being.

When you shoot, you always shoot to kill. The stopping part is inherently included in the equation. There is no way that you can reliably predict that the person will "stop" without the possibility of killing them. That is why you must always be sure that a) there is a genuine threat, b) you had no other choice, and c) you are prepared both legally and psychologically to do it. If you can't abide by any of those, you shouldn't be possessing a weapon.
 
Insofar as the difference is one of intent, of the ultimate objective of my actions in such an encounter, I would shoot to stop the threat. If the threat stops, I have no reason to continue shooting. I would not shoot at a fallen, disarmed, or fleeing attacker. However, as long as the attacker is actively pursuing his attack, I will shoot... will the knowledge that my actions are likely to cause his death. Once again, his death is not the objective, it's the means by which the threat is stopped. So, in a sense, it is "shooting to kill", at least as opposed to "shooting to wound"; If I have to discharge my weapon, I would do so in the most effective, i.e, the most lethal manner I could, but only to the point where the threat stops.

It's a murky question, easily misinterpreted, but my goal is not to kill, it's to survive, which is achieved by stopping the threat.
 
You shoot to end the threat.

If 1 to the arm will do the trick, so be it. If it requires 7 to the chest, then so be it.

As I tell my Carry Permit classes, Tennessee law does not give you the luxury of picking and choosing "shoot to kill" "shoot to maim" "shoot to scare" "shoot to wound" "shoot to this" "shoot to that" etc. etc.

You shoot to end the threat. Whatever that may require. Nothing more.

killing is not the goal, it is a possible side-effect.
Click to expand...
+ 1
 
As has been stated, you shoot to stop the threat. One distinction is that I have been taught not to TRY to just "stop" a threat by aiming for the leg, etc. You shoot for center mass and stop when the threat is resolved. To continue shooting after that most likely puts you in legal jeopardy.
 
Shoot until the threat is stopped. Stop the threat as quickly as reasonably possible. This might entail shooting the thrat several times before it is no longer a threat, most damage from a bullet does not immediately stop what was shot.
 
The best way to look at it is how you want to judge the final outome.

Your life is in immediate danger. You fire until the gun is empty, the assailant is down, incapacitated, however, after medical care he lives, and goes to jail for life.

If your goal is to "Shoot to kill" then that was a failure. If your goal is to "Shoot to stop" that was a success.

So, consider if you beleive that scenario to be a success or not, then decide your term.

Note, shoot to stop should be "Shoot to stop, fully aware and prepared to deal with the fact that a likely outcome is the perpetrator dying"
 
the general rule is to shoot until the threat is neutralized.

But let's say I was in the Von Maur store when whats-his-name decided to shoot everyone. Had I been there and had a gun on me, I would have gone straight for his head.
 
Frankly I'm very suprised and fearful for those on here that voted 'kill'. Never EVER make a statement to LEO's after a defensive shooting that you intended to kill.

I can't believe this is even an issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
NY State Bill: Officers should shoot to stop, not to kill
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
IdahoLT1
I
B
  • Locked
Less-Lethal Ammo *LAUGH*
Replies
13
Views
881
Boba Fett
B
D
  • Locked
Mass Killings Stopped by Armed Citizens
Replies
2
Views
419
mortablunt
M
C
  • Locked
Lethal force means killing
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
pax
P
M
  • Locked
Israeli gun owner stops terrorists
Replies
12
Views
1K
Bigjake
B
Back
Top