#20041
Whirlibird
Whirlibird
Survivalist
member10

<div class=”d4p-bbp-quote-title”>Malgus wrote:</div>Partially agree with Whirl…

Firing a “warning shot” in this situation has an actual name. It’s called a “spoiler”. Your “warning shot” – intentionally missing – will, as Brother Whirl has stated, demonstrate your lack of will to shoot someone. It will also telegraph your position to “them” (whoever “them” turn out to be) and you will probably get dead soon afterwards. Maybe along with others of your group. So, no warning shots. Besides, in a SHTF scenario, there probably won’t be any ammo being made for some time – which means you will only have what you have, or less. Probably never “more”. Which means payroll accountability of every round. No warning shots, no ‘practice’. Hunting, defense or battle.

I will differ with Brother Whirl in one respect. He is falling into the lingo and practices of the cop – which usually parses down words till they’re paper thin. They are told to “shoot to stop the threat”. Not “shoot to kill”. This is sort of a weasel way of saying “We killed him” without opening themselves up to obvious repercussions.

In a lawful, polite society with the machines of government and courts fully functional, this is a decent practice – even if only from a liability standpoint. (I mean, could you imagine the uproar if a cop actually admitted they “shoot to kill”? Not only does that open a big Pandora’s Box of vicarious liability, but it’s a PR nightmare. Plus, some shyster will flambé them with a lawsuit, brought by the surviving family – “You deprived mah baby of his cibbil rahts!!”… That sort of thing.) Not saying it’s right or wrong. It just is.

But in a SHTF scenario, I don’t see the machines of government or courts functioning at all – Rule of Law goes out the window. Which means if you have to use your weapon, then you will probably have to kill the bad guys. Yes, on purpose. No time, nor inclination, to parse phrases at this point. “Stopping” them means they might still be alive when their buddies run away and leave them in a pool of blood. NOW what, Rambo? Can’t call the cops or an ambulance.

You have three choices, two of which most people would find morally repugnant. You can 1) put them out of their misery with a pistol shot behind the ear. 2) leave them there to die slow in considerable agony or 3) you can render aid, thereby depleting your supplies meant for your group and/or family and then devote time, people and resources to care for them afterwards – if even for only a short time.

Actually it’s the civilian firearms instructor in me.
Any advice and information I give in a class may come back to bite me in court pre-SHTF, so I use careful words.

Same goes for any verbal commands, “Stop!” is the normal one given/used in class because everyone can remember it and it’s pretty much universal, everyone understands it and it fits most situations.

Bad guy attacks me, I’m shooting to stop him.
Be it shooting him in the chest and waiting for him to bleed out while the ambulance drives slow
or post SHTF and I remove his foot from under the car with a shotgun and wait for the shock and blood loss to kick in. He is stopped, dead is either a bonus or a bad day, depending on who you are.