Where would you shoot a bad guy in self defense?

[Steve MI]

Louis Awerbuck mentions the ballcap brim deflection during every class when the moving 3-d targets come out. The 12ga slug deflection has happened at Boone Co. during classes more than once.

Which suggests I should make a suit from ballcap with the brims facing outward to serve as body armor. Heh.

forgot that one its been to long i need to get back and do a Louie gig i can hear it now

Steve its not like doing taxes just shoot the thing

 

[finity]

I always practice that way too. But I liked someones two to the chest and repeat untill the threat is on the ground or neutralized. (by neutralized I mean flat lined).

I would shoot to kill...one man standing...one story of how it happened.

We must be careful about statements like these.

While I understand the primal desire to MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE the BG isn't getting up again to continue to harm us, the LAW is only concerned that we use just the NECESSARY amount of force to stop the threat against us.

"Shooting to kill" or any other variation of that will quickly get you into legal trouble unless the killing was absolutely necessary or unavoidable in the context of using reasonable (deadly) force to stop the threat.

It may be reasonable to shoot someone who is actively threatening us but as soon as they are on the ground, running away or it's obvious in some other way that they are no longer a threat you can't continue to shoot them.

 

[UIndyKenneth]

I have a buddy that's a marine and he's always talking about the "two in the chest, one in the face" technique that they had to learn in boot camp. I would personally probably just stick with center mass because it's harder to miss, but in reality, if it's the case of home invasion or something, you're not going to be that far away. Maybe 7-ish yards. It's pretty hard to miss at such close range unless you've just never fired your gun. But I agree with my marine buddy, two in the chest is good, but one in the face for good measure to put the bad guy to the ground if you haven't already with the two to the chest. The one to the face will almost definitely terminate the guy.

 

[rhino]

Here's another thing to consider.

Let's say the central nervous system is not damaged, but shot placement was otherwise excellent, resulting in significant blood-spurting wounds being inflicted.

How long does it take for someone to lose consciousness or be physically unable to act due to rapid blood loss?

10 seconds?

5?

Think again.

It's going to take at a minute or more for someone to lose consciousness solely from blood loss, even if you've severed a huge artery and it's spraying. If they quit sooner than that, it's probably a case of a "psychological stop" where they choose to stop (whether they realize it consciously or not). You can't rely on a psychological stop, although it's good when it happens, even if the manifestation is the bad guy running away.

Think about what an attacker can do to you in a minute or even longer while the bleeding is working against them. In a violent encounter, a minute is an eternity. They might be effectively dead already and beyond the help of modern medicine to repair the damage, but they still have plenty of time and ability to cause grievous harm to you or kill you.

 

[Roadie]

We must be careful about statements like these.

While I understand the primal desire to MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE the BG isn't getting up again to continue to harm us, the LAW is only concerned that we use just the NECESSARY amount of force to stop the threat against us.

"Shooting to kill" or any other variation of that will quickly get you into legal trouble unless the killing was absolutely necessary or unavoidable in the context of using reasonable (deadly) force to stop the threat.

It may be reasonable to shoot someone who is actively threatening us but as soon as they are on the ground, running away or it's obvious in some other way that they are no longer a threat you can't continue to shoot them.

Very good points.

"Shoot to stop" is a phrase I think all gun owners should use instead. It's sad that we have to be so PC, but I have no trouble believing that a Prosecutor would search the web and use my words against me n a self defense case.

"People of the jury, this man is a killer, not a citizen defending himself! Look here, on ingunowners.com on Feb. 3, 2010, he said "I would shoot to kill"!"

Sad, but very plausible in today's anti-gun litigation happy society.

 

[Wabatuckian]

1. Center of mass of the part of his body that presents itself to me (bad guys are learning tactics in jail - shoot through walls and use of cover).

2. If I can manage it, dead center of the line formed by the collar bones. Bad guys are making increased use of body armor.

3. I tend to be good at head shots - ocular window - in FoF exercises and practice.

Josh

 

[elaw555]

COM
High Chest preferable
Head if neccesary

 

[hueycrew]

Two to the body (of target presented), if ineffective and threat continues, Mozambique. Chances are they will be closer by then.

 

[mike8170]

Controlled pairs to center mass, one to the lower face if the target was still moving, and repeat, the whole time getting irritated that I don't have the rifle I should be using!

 

[jason867]

I was just reading this article by Ayoob

Answering some well asked questions about personal defense by Massad Ayoob Issue #97

And a little more than half-way down, he says this

For many years, I’ve made a point of leveling the gun at the pelvis of everyone I took at gunpoint. The main reason is that this point of aim allows you to see the suspect’s hands. If you aim at his head or chest or belly, your gun and your hands block your view of his hands. Man is the tool-bearing mammal, and therefore by definition the weapon-bearing mammal. A man will kill you with his hands. Thus, the Golden Rule of law enforcement: “Watch their hands!”

With the gun leveled groin high, you’ll be able to see in time if the suspect reaches for a weapon in his belt or in his pocket. If your gun is blocking your view of his hands, your first indication that you need to shoot will be when his bullet punches into your body. Talk about being behind the curve.
When a man perceives a firearm aimed at his private parts, a tremendous psychological effect is also engendered. A lot of bad guys have been shot or stabbed before, and have a lot of ego invested in having survived it. More of them have role models they met on the street or in prison who showed off the bullet scars on their torsos. This can reduce their fear of being shot in the trunk of the body. But NOTHING reduces a man’s fear of being shot in the genitals. This point of aim seems to definitely get their attention, in my experience.
If you do have to fire, a shot at the pelvis is angling downward. This reduces the chance of an exiting or missing shot striking a bystander a distance behind the felon, who was blocked from your view by the criminal’s body or by the tunnel vision that so often afflicts people involved in these situations. Finally, the pelvic area tends to produce dynamically “man-stopping” gunshot wounds. They tear up the lower abdominal viscera frightfully, and if the pelvis is smashed, the cross-member of skeletal support is compromised and the body almost always collapses.

Seems to make sense to me, but I doubt I'll remember that when I'm aiming at a criminal...

edit: I just had this thought too: I've never seen body armor that covers the pelvic area...

 

[Joe Williams]

I was just reading this article by Ayoob

Answering some well asked questions about personal defense by Massad Ayoob Issue #97

And a little more than half-way down, he says this

Seems to make sense to me, but I doubt I'll remember that when I'm aiming at a criminal...

The pelvic girdle is almost as easy to hit as high COM, and if you smash the pelvic girdle of an advancing assailant, he'll have to drag himself toward you with his hands if he wants to continue. The legs won't have any support.

I just women would quit grinning about practicing for such shots...

 

[Steve MI]

to actually crush the griddle and have it collapse you need to hit the golf ball sized impact points they are buried deep in the pelvic region and well protected as well

 

[ThePope]

Where would I shoot a bad guy ? ?

I would shoot them in a bar

I would shoot them in a car

I would shoot them from afar

I would shoot them in a bar from a car from afar....I would shoot them anywharr.

Would I shoot them in a train ?

Would I shoot them in the rain ?

Would I shoot them through a pane ?

Yes, I would shoot them in a train, in the rain, through a pane...even if they use a cane....

Would I shoot them in the heat ?

In the street ?

Eating meat ?

Behind a sheet ?

On retreat ?

Yes, yes I would....I would shoot them in the street,eating meat behind a sheet.....

But never, never on retreat....THAT I will NOT do.....or with Green Eggs and Ham.

( profound apologies to the good Dr. Suisse.....R.I.P.....)

Emmout.....

 

[Joe Williams]

to actually crush the griddle and have it collapse you need to hit the golf ball sized impact points they are buried deep in the pelvic region and well protected as well

Pelvic girdle is just a tad bigger than a golf ball, and hits anywhere in the area can be quite useful for immobilizing an adversary

Google Image Result for http://www.shockfamily.net/skeleton/PELVIC.JPG

 

[Steve MI]

the girdle itself yes but what needs to be hit to crush it and end the weight bearing support isnt... its behind the gridle and is often found as an average the buttons on jean pockets is a good location to drive for or that general area having seen 2 people shot in the pelvic girdle region and one of them walked into the ER the other was a shotgun blast that didnt survive anyhow

 

[Steve MI]

Fackler ML: "Shots to the Pelvic Area ". Wound Ballistics Review. 4(1):13; 1999.

“I welcome the chance to refute the belief that the pelvic area is a reasonable target during a gunfight. I can find no evidence or valid rationale for intentionally targeting the pelvic area in a gunfight. The reasons against, however, are many. They include:

-- From the belt line to the top of the head, the areas most likely to rapidly incapacitate the person hit are concentrated in or near the midline. In the pelvis, however, the blood vessels are located to each side, having diverged from the midline, as the aorta and inferior vena cava divide at about the level of the navel. Additionally, the target that, when struck, is the most likely to cause rapid and reliable incapacitation, the spinal cord located in the midline of the abdomen, thorax and neck), ends well above the navel and 18 not a target in the pelvis.
-- The pelvic branches of the aorta and inferior vena cava are more difficult to hit than their parent vessels -- they are smaller targets, and they diverge laterally from the midline (getting farther from it as they descend). Even if hit, each carry far less blood than the larger vessels from which they originated. Thus, even if one of these branches in the pelvis is hit, incapacitation from blood loss must necessarily be slower than from a major vessel hit higher up in the torso.
-- Other than soft tissue structures not essential to continuing the gunfight (1oops of bowel, bladder) the most likely thing to be struck by shots to the pelvis would be bone. The ilium is a large flat bone that forms most of the back wall of the pelvis. The problem is that handgun bullets that hit it would not break the bone but only make a small hole in passing through it: this would do nothing to destroy bony support of the pelvic girdle. The pelvic girdle is essentially a circle: to disrupt its structure significantly would require breaking it in two places. Only a shot that disrupted the neck or upper portion of the shaft of the femur would be likely to disrupt bony support enough to cause the person hit to fall. This is a small and highly unlikely target: the aim point to hit it would be a mystery to those without medical training — and to most of those with medical training.

The “theory” stated in the question postulates that “certain autonomic responses the body undergoes during periods of stress” causes officers to shoot low, and that apparently this is good in a gunfight because such shots cause “severe disability.” I hope that the points presented above debunk the second part of the theory. As for the “autonomic responses” that cause officers to shoot low, I am unaware of anything in the anatomy or physiology of the autonomic nervous system that would even suggest such an occurrence. Most laymen do not understand the function of the autonomic nervous system. It is simply a system whose main function is to fine tune the glands and smooth muscles (those in the walls of organs and blood vessels) of the body. During times of stress such as perceived impending danger, the autonomic nervous system diverts blood from the intestines and digestive organs to the skeletal muscles — in the so-called “fight or flight” response. The effects of this response are constantly exaggerated by laymen who lack an adequate understanding of it — most notably by gun writ-ers eager to impress their readers. Interestingly, the human body can get along quite well without major parts of the autonomic nervous system. During my professional life as a surgeon, myself and colleagues removed parts of thousands of vagus nerves (mostly in treating peptic ulcer disease) -- thus depriving the patient of the major part of the parasympathetic half of the autonomic nervous system. We also removed many ganglia from the sympathetic half of the auto-nomic nervous system, in treating such things as profusely excess sweating and various problems caused by spasm of the arteries. I am unaware of any evidence that these operations produced any significant effect on the future capacity of these patients to react appropriately in times of impending danger.

Unfortunately, the pelvis shot fallacy is common. This fallacy, along with other misinformation, is promoted constantly by at least one gun writer who is widely published in the popular gun press. Because of this, I regularly debunk this fallacy by including some of the above rationale in my presentations to law enforcement firearm instructor groups.”

 

[Joe Williams]

Fackler ML: "Shots to the Pelvic Area ". Wound Ballistics Review. 4(1):13; 1999.
snip.”

Ahhh, yes... Martin Fackler... the man whose work on goats brought us the 9mm Winchester Silvertip, and a few dead FBI agents. I'm not a fan.

 

[Steve MI]

THE FBI agents were killed based on there poor tactics not the calibers i had a chance to talk to the surviving agent at SSS about this there arrogance and lack of planning killed them not the ammo how many agents used a 9mm silvertip? how far was the shot? what did it penetrate before coming to rest a few slight millimeters from the heart of the bad guy? dont blame ammo for bad tactics while fackler is better off than others in some reports and findings i have seen other test from other people that mirror this finding

 

[WOLFEMAN]

I practice 2,2 and 2. Two center of mass, two to head and
two to the groin.

 

[jason867]

I think the bigger reason ayoob recommends pointing at the pelvic area is not to shoot that area, but rather it lets you see the target more clearly.

pointing at center mass could block your vision of his pockets and/or hands...

If you're pointing down, and you see the instant the target takes action, then you can quickly bring the aim up and hit center mass

I think this is what ayoob was trying to stress...