Why not just shoot their leg?

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by buster40c, Feb 8, 2016.

  1. buster40c

    buster40c Well-Known Member

    8,549
    267
    83
  2. VThillman

    VThillman Active Member

    2,733
    24
    38
    Yeah, the thoracic artery is a biggy. Apparently the pelvic girdle is at least as effective for immobilizing - but maybe is no less likely to be fatal (there'll be a kidney nearby). My dread of killing anybody is slightly less than my intolerance for getting killed though.
     

  3. Oldhand

    Oldhand AKA Rawhidekid! Lifetime Supporter

    1,868
    33
    48
    The other problem with shooting in the leg is that if they are armed they can still shoot back.:)
     
  4. buster40c

    buster40c Well-Known Member

    8,549
    267
    83
    That's why you double tap....one in each arm.
     
  5. Tommycourt

    Tommycourt Tommycourt

    2,139
    17
    38
    You are wasting ammo when you shoot the leg, arm on non lethal area. My saying is this: Trespassers and thieves will be violated, shot and eaten. If you are still alive, you will be shot again, and not in the arm or leg. We will aim for the breastbone or the head bone. Ammo is too valuable to waste!!!!!!!!

    Tommy

    BTW- Violations will be conducted on a daily basis until the attitude turns for the better!!!
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2016
  6. squirrelhunter

    squirrelhunter Active Member Lifetime Supporter

    4,199
    9
    38
    Yep,dead man tells no tale.;)
     
  7. gunnerjacky

    gunnerjacky New Member

    98
    0
    0
    The best in this case is the pepper spray.. :D Neither he can retaliate nor will he die.
     
  8. gunslinger669

    gunslinger669 Active Member

    1,091
    1
    38
    Bear spray..just because it reaches further and there's more of it....then shoot the leg.
     
  9. threetango

    threetango Special Dance Instructor

    924
    3
    0
    First, do not shoot unless you have a deadly situation.

    I guess I'm old school as I was taught to shoot to stop the threat and don't stop shooting until the threat is eliminated.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2016
  10. Donn

    Donn Member

    62
    8
    8
    Most people who subscribe to the "shoot him in the leg" theory have, 1) Never fired a handgun. And, 2) Watched too movies and TV shows. The casual observer thinks it's a piece of cake.
     
  11. SavageGuy

    SavageGuy Active Member

    3,442
    15
    38

    I agree. If you are in a serious enough of a situation where you have to draw and shoot, you need to eliminate the threat quickly. That doesn't mean shoot the threat and then when the threat is down dump a mag in his head, the object isn't to kill but to stop the threat. If he dies, that wasn't what you were trying to do. If the threat threatens your life or your family's life, the threat has just violated his right to life. The best case scenario is that you don't even have to shoot. If you do, then hopefully the threat survives. You're not out to kill anyone.
    Just my two cents.
     
  12. bow40

    bow40 New Member

    2
    0
    0
    If you have to shoot. It is to stop the threat. When it goes to court and you say I just wanted to wound him you will be in big trouble