Reply #31: "Shooting to wound" is immoral. [View All]

[Silverhair]

I know it sounds like the right thing to do, but it is the wrong thing to do, and can be used as evidence against you.

First, ones does not shoot with the purpose of killing. That is wrong. The only reason for shooting someone is that they are doing something so evil that they must be STOPPED immediately, even if in the action of being stopped also kills the threat. Stopped means rendered physically incapable of further threat. It does not mean an attempt at persuasion.

Any shot has the potential to be fatal. A shot to wound in the leg could severe the femoral artery and death would occur quickly. Because any shooting has that potential, all shooting are uses of deadly force. DEADLY FORCE CAN ONLY BE USED IN THE GRAVEST EXTREME. That is not just a legal phrase. It is a reality. The GRAVEST EXTREME means that you have NO OTHER OPTIONS. They have all been eliminated. You HAVE TO STOP THE ASSAILANT NOW!!! THIS SECOND!!! Two or three seconds later will be too late. Only when things get to that state are you justified in shooting someone.

If you shoot to wound someone, you are attempting to persuade by extreme measures. That means that you have the time to see if the wound does indeed stop him, and if it doesn't then you can try another shot. But if you have the time to see if the wound stops the crook, then you were not in the gravest extreme. You took an action that could have been fatal before it was justified. YOU ARE IN THE WRONG.

If I ever have to, (And I hope I never will.) I will be shooting to stop, not to kill. To increase my chance of hitting my target and successfully defending myself, I will aim for the center of the target. The heart happens to be in that area, but that is not my problem.