May not have to shoot

[Fine Figure of a Man]

I have lasers on a few handguns. They may or my not help in a SD situation, hope I never find out. The mention of lasers seems to get some folks riled up. I don't get it, maybe they are of no benefit but what is the down side? Relying one the laser rather than developing good shooting skills? That's operator error and no different than counting on higher capacity mags to compensate for poor shooting.
When I first got my CCW permit a two day course was required. The LEO instructor with 35+ years experience liked a laser on his BUG. One of his points was should you ever have to hold someone at gunpoint, perhaps someone you shot and wounded, the laser will allow more peripheral vision.

 

[Jeb Stuart]

This belief falls into the same category as the advice to not chamber a round in a shotgun until you are confronting an intruder because, "The sound of a shotgun being racked will scare off the BG"

But if it makes you feel better prepared, that is almost as important

I would not rack a shotgun to scare anyone off, but I do not under any circumstances carry a loaded round in my 20ga shotgun I use for home defense. Sure does not take long to rack a shotgun. And I do not want to wear out a spring which does happen over time on a shotgun. Not to mention drop safety.

My Shotgun has a flashlight with the switch remotely attached for quick on and off, not to mention it is blinding. I do not want to ever give away my position and I detest lasers (sorry JMO). Beside I have a have a complete alarm system installed throughout the Perimeter of the house. They come, in, there will already be plenty of noise. If they are in my house, they made the ultimate decision.

I have a friend of mine that has a sister that lived in Richmond Va. Two thugs broke in, took the whole family down stairs to the basement and butchered all of them including the children.
Another home in my hometown had a guy that lived down the street, break in, and Killed the Wife and children with a crow bar. They sexually raped the dead wife with that crow bare.
I will have no problem with taking out anyone that comes into my home from breaking in.

I was in the Electronic alarm industry for decades, enough to see plenty of tragedy.

Read the Caption on the page below. :COULD HAPPEN TO ANY OF US.

The murdered family.

Read the whole story

https://pilotonline.com/news/local/crime/article_c400be9c-80dc-515c-847c-9e803cc9f073.html

 

[WrongHanded]

I don't own any lasers. But I think if I were going to use a weapon mounted laser to intimidate a home intruder (who up until then was not aware of my immediate presence), I'd shine it in their eyes.

My reasoning is that they will rapidly connect the dots. Bright light; coming from that guy right there; on a gun; pointed at my head.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

I will not shoot unless I have to to defend life. Just like I was taught at police academy and NRA police firearms instructor training..

That's odd... I don't remember being taught in the academy that flashing suspects with a laser or racking a shotgun was a good way to gain compliance or stop violent hooliganism. I also don't remember that in the NRA LEO courses. Wait a second, let me go get the instructors guide... Nope, not in there.

You should be ashamed of what you just tried to do, playing the Argument from Authority game when many of the posters here can quite easily beat your claimed authority into the ground and make it cry.

Crappy tactics aren't morality, they are crappy tactics. The two have nothing to do with each other. If you are playing the "I hope he gives up when he sees I have a laser" game, you are putting yourself behind in the OODA loop. If you think that intentionally putting yourself behind in the OODA loop is the best way to protect yourself, well... Maybe you should go to that NRA LEO course again.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Not my area of expertise but it seems likely to me that anyone that breaks into an occupied home is aware the owner may be armed and is operating under the assumption the weapon is for show and won't be used. Under that assumption, I'm not going to wait for the intruder to notice the dot... I'm not going to try to reason with them... I'm not going to offer them a "fair fight." If I am in a situation I find it necessary to pick up a deadly weapon inside my own home, I am going to depend on the weapon not the accessories.

 

[rpenmanparker]

I disagree with so much of this. Some of you have it right, but not the OP. Pointing a laser at someone hoping he will turn and run is no different than trying to shoot them in the leg or shoulder to discourage them. When you bring your gun to bear on a perp, and establish that is exactly what you are aiming at, you shoot to kill. Nothing less. Laser discouragement is total BS and it is deadly dangerous...to you, not them. Waiting to not have to shoot after having established your legitimate target is wasting your advantage. OP, I hope for your sake you reconsider your strategy.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

shoot to kill. Nothing less

Absolutely not.
Shoot to stop a threat of death or serious harm to yourself or others. Anything more and you could end up in prison.

 

[Jeb Stuart]

Absolutely not.
Shoot to stop a threat of death or serious harm to yourself or others. Anything more and you could end up in prison.

They come into my house, I damn well consider it a threat of death to myself and others. I do not mean to be sarcastic, but for God sake, you going to stop and ask them? How much time do you think you have? You really going to hesitate. I doubt the bad guy will. And what then? Maybe these animals rape and kill you whole family?

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

I do not mean to be sarcastic, but for God sake, you going to stop and ask them?

That's not what he means. Shooting to stop the threat means you stop shooting when the threat stops being a threat. Target is down, target has fled, target has surrendered... stop shooting. "Shoot to kill" means that you might take some shots after the threat stops. It's the difference between legal self defense and murder.

 

[Jeb Stuart]

That's not what he means. Shooting to stop the threat means you stop shooting when the threat stops being a threat. Target is down, target has fled, target has surrendered... stop shooting. "Shoot to kill" means that you might take some shots after the threat stops. It's the difference between legal self defense and murder.

I know what it means. But I would put as many rounds into the guy as possible as soon as possible. No, I am not going to stand over a dead body and load up and start shooting the corpse. If he is out the door and running down the street, I am not going to try and hit him. But that is just common sense.

 

[rpenmanparker]

When I say shoot to kill, I mean that is the intent. With a trespassing predator there is no question of justification.

Absolutely not.
Shoot to stop a threat of death or serious harm to yourself or others. Anything more and you could end up in prison.

Once a threat is identified on your own property, the shot is justified. Scaring the perp away is foolishness.

 

[rpenmanparker]

That's not what he means. Shooting to stop the threat means you stop shooting when the threat stops being a threat. Target is down, target has fled, target has surrendered... stop shooting. "Shoot to kill" means that you might take some shots after the threat stops. It's the difference between legal self defense and murder.

It does not mean that. Shoot to kill means the shot you take is intended to kill. It does not mean you keep shooting past necessity.

 

[9mmepiphany]

It does not mean that. Shoot to kill means the shot you take is intended to kill. It does not mean you keep shooting past necessity.

You may not intend it in that manner, but that is exactly what it means...at least to juries.

That is why it is taught in all LE academies that, "You never shoot to kill, you only shoot to stop (his threatening actions)." Our intention is never to kill, only to cause them to stop their actions. Our actions might result in their fatality, but that is not our intention.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I know what it means. But I would put as many rounds into the guy as possible as soon as possible. No, I am not going to stand over a dead body and load up and start shooting the corpse. If he is out the door and running down the street, I am not going to try and hit him. But that is just common sense.

Then you should not confuse that perception of common sense by using imprecise language.

You have to be wary of being perceived as chest beating...the negative connotations can easily negatively impact both your criminal and civil cases.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

You really going to hesitate.

When did I say that I would?

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

I disagree with so much of this. Some of you have it right, but not the OP. Pointing a laser at someone hoping he will turn and run is no different than trying to shoot them in the leg or shoulder to discourage them. When you bring your gun to bear on a perp, and establish that is exactly what you are aiming at, you shoot to kill. Nothing less. Laser discouragement is total BS and it is deadly dangerous...to you, not them. Waiting to not have to shoot after having established your legitimate target is wasting your advantage. OP, I hope for your sake you reconsider your strategy.

If you ever have to defend yourself in court after shooting someone in self defense would you want the prosecution to present this post as evidence?

 

[rpenmanparker]

If you ever have to defend yourself in court after shooting someone in self defense would you want the prosecution to present this post as evidence?

Machts nichts. You either do it right or you don’t do it at all. If you are that afraid of the complications of using firearms for self-defense, you shouldn’t be doing it. Repeating in print what both of us should have been taught in our CCW training doesn’t scare me.

 

[JohnKSa]

I'd like to think that a lot of the "misunderstandings" in this thread are just that, but I think that's being optimistic.

If you find that you are constantly "rephrasing" what someone wrote and responding to your "rephrase" instead of actually responding to what they wrote then, instead, try responding to what people actually post. There's no point in making something up, attributing it to someone else and then responding to it as if they actually said it. Well, there is a point, but it's trolling and it's against THR rules.

If you find that you are constantly telling other members what they said or what they said they would do, then, instead, try responding to what they actually DID say or what they DID say they would do. There's no point in putting words in someone's mouth and then pretending it's what they actually said. Most THR members are capable of expressing themselves adequately and it's a waste of time to constantly put words in other people's mouths. Well, it's a waste of time unless you're trolling and that is against THR rules.

This thread is done.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...How is it you are trying to stop while I am trying to kill. You are describing a distinction without a difference. How do you shoot to stop? How would it differ from shoot to kill? It wouldn’t, and you know it. What you suggest is taught to LEOs in your experience is different than I was taught in both Texas and Nevada firearms self-defense training. You shoot to kill....

By all means, if it pleases you go ahead with your story that you shot to kill. If that's your choice it won't be my problem.

On the other hand, I will not be that foolish, and I will similarly teach my students that one shoots to stop -- not to kill -- as 9mmepiphany has explained.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....no police paper work to fill out. ...

This is a fallacy. You might not have had to shoot, but you need to report the incident to the police immediately.

It's good to not have to shoot, but don't count on any one thing. Always have a Plan B.