First, I'd like certain posters in this thread to note that this is The High Road, and implications that we're not agreeing with you because we're too "simplistic" or aren't "deep enough thinkers" are unnecessary, and kinda resented on my part. So please watch it.
Moving on, I would ask those who support "shooting to wound" to make at least SOME determination of how likely a wounding shot will "maximize both chances" for survival. Keep in mind these things:
1) As said before, no bullet wound is safe - bullets, handgun bullets especially, do not move in straight lines through the body. People have been shot in the shoulder and hit in the aorta. Others have been shot in the head and had the bullet simply curve around the scalp and exit with little damage. Any shot at a person carries a very non-trivial risk of death.
2) The chances of incapacitation are already low with COM handgun shots, and "wounding" shots even more so. Keep in mind the targets needed to physically incapacitate an attacker (by the very nature of the scenarios postulated, these are folks who are temporarily psychotic/impaired, and won't have the "Oh God I'm shot I give up!" psychological reaction a rational attacker would). In order of importance:
a) CNS (destroying the brain or spine)
b) circulatory system (massive blood loss causing loss of conciousness)
c) immobilization due to destruction of some part of the skeletal system
The first two targets are out, since they involve COM shots and a high risk of death. The third target is a distant third in choice, both for the size of the aimpoint and the likelyhood of the desired effect.
Look, suppose you want to stop someone with a knife, so you aim at their shoulder. But, see, you're not aiming at their shoulder, but at a specific target within the shoulder - AFAIK the best choice for you to aim at that might immobilize it is the shoulder joint capsule. This is, at best a target of about an inch square. Only by destroying that will you have any reasonable chance of immediately immobilizing the joint. If you miss this small target, you either hit the muscle (causing no immediate immobilization), shoulder bone (ditto), subclavical artery (which might incapacitate, but only through bleeding - which is what we don't want as that means a high risk of death), enter the thorasic cavity and probably hit a lung (ditto), or miss entirely (meaning who knows what - or who - you'll hit).
Fine, let's say you want to hit them in the pelvis instead - it's a larger target, after all. Shattering pelvis FTW! Well, no. See, while you may be able to better hit the larger pelvis than the shoulder joint, that doesn't mean it'll actually do anything useful. The human pelvis is a very strong and tough bone - it has to be to support and distribute our weight through a lifetime of walking. In fact, in the distant past when I was taking my EMT class in college, I was told by the instructors how to recognize a broken pelvis in a car accident victim. I was then told by these instructors that I needed to essentially ignore the broken pelvis, because a broken pelvis implied that the victim had been hit with enough force that it was a virtual certainty they would have more severe and life-threatening injuries for me to treat.
And you're going to "shatter" this with a handgun bullet? Unless you've got your .454 Casull as your carry piece, I think it more likely that you will do one of the following: imbed the bullet in the bone for little effect; deflect the bullet into who-knows-where (the abdominal cavity which may kill but won't incapacitate?, the femoral artery causing rapid bleed-out and death?); or, of course, you may miss. Even supposing you do hit and perforate the pelvis, it is by no means certain to cause immobilization in a determined attacker, unless the bone undergoes massive multiple fractures. And in that case - the best case given here - you've just put a lot of sharp bone shards next to, guess what?, the highly vulnerable femoral artery that if damaged will probably result in death. How much chance does little Billy or Grandpa really have now?
All that with a handgun. Under stress. Look, here's the thing - you can certainly come up with scenarios so far-fetched, unlikely, and artificial as to lead us to a wound-or-COM choice, I'll grant you that. But unless y'all stop assuming that a wounding shot "maximizes both our chances for surviving", and actually start giving some solid reasons as to why (and why it's not simply one huge gamble with both your lives), you're not going to convince me.
As for my choices...if, given the situations shown, I valued my life over that of the target, then I would shoot. If, instead, I valued my target's life over my own, then I would not shoot!. Not because I've been brainwashed by the gun rags into binary decision logic trees, but because I think a "wounding shot" reduces the risk of the target's (or other innocent's) death by too little, and reduces the chance of incapacitation of the attacker by too much. I would take whatever other, non-lethal, action was available to me.
Feel free to convince me otherwise...but please don't belittle me while doing so.
I distance myself from insanity but I'll defend myself against anyone crazy enough to hunt me down. Madications (sp) are no excuse.
