So I have been paying very close attention to what is going on in politics, as we all should be. It seems that non-gun owners and people who don’t know anything about firearms, believe that if someone is attacking you and your life is in danger, you should just shoot them in the leg. Now I’m sure we are all aware of why this is a horrible idea, but if you ever find yourself in a conversation with someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about, here are a few key points to why this idea SUCKS.
- There are major arteries in the leg, if you hit one, they will bleed out very quickly, leaving no chance of survival.
- Aiming for the leg whenever you are in a hand-to-hand combat situation is nearly impossible as it is already incredibly difficult to hit someone center-mass in the heat of the moment.
- We don’t shoot to maim, we shoot to stop the threat, if they have chosen to put your life in jeopardy, we have the constitutional right to defend ourselves.
It never hurts to arm yourself with knowledge, hopefully this will help you guys to educate someone else!
EXACTLY, just use that double barrel shot gun and give them two blasts!!
Do you remember this classic?
If a person shows up with a gun and knife at close range definitely the cops would have to shoot them in the body area, otherwise if it’s at distance, it would be nice to use scatter gunshot in the leg to disable the situations.
Oh yes I remember it very well. LOL
Foot shots are extremely painful!!
I thought we were supposed to blindly fire twice in the air?
I would also add that shooting someone, no matter where you hit them is always going to be considered lethal force. If you want to “less lethal” them, you need a totally different tool.
If the bad guy has a firearm a shot in the leg does not end the threat. I have never seen anyone fire a gun with their legs.
You should only shoot them in the leg if their unarmed you know with a knife or something
Remember though, use a shotgun because people do not need AR 14s.
Ah yes, those fully semi-automatic assault weapons. Unfortunately, I lost mine, along with all of my 30 “clip magazines”, in a boating accident.
There are some strange answers here to a straightforward question. Here in Michigan, if you are in fear for your life, hence the only need to draw your handgun, you should be shooting to stop the threat, in the center of mass (cardiovascular triangle). If you are take to court and trying to get the jury that you were in fear for your life, but only wanted to slow them down by aiming for a narrow, moving target that will NOT likely stop the threat…food for thought.
- When shooting a leg, the bullet has a higher chance of over penetration/ changing trajectory which would result hitting an innocent bystander in the back ground. The likelihood of this in a crowded place like a mall food court would be extremely likely.
This isn’t Hollywood… If I could figure this out in high school with zero experience and some basic critical thinking skills… full grown adults should be able to figure this stuff out… come on people… how is this even a discussion…
You would never see my knives until it was too late.
If they are unarmed, you most likely are not legally able to shoot them in the leg, as any time you use a firearm it is lethal force. If they have a knife, they are armed, and lethally so, and shooting them in the leg is problematic. So your choices are let them beat you to death or shoot to neutralize the threat, which does not include attempting to shoot them in the leg (good luck with that, Clint).